The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
Nude photo shuts down UK's Tate Modern exhbit
Mikaela:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on October 02, 2009, 12:55:14 pm ---Actually, didn't some of the great Renaissance painters get complaints from their pious patrons and have to put clothes - or at least well positioned drapery or shrubbery on or near some of their subjects?
--- End quote ---
No need to go back to the Renaissance - remember when Ashcroft had them cover up the boobs of the Justitia statue he gave speeches in front of? :laugh:
The difference, to me, is that the nude human form in itself is not at all offensive. And sexually explicit nudes aren't offensive as a general rule either, though in some situations they may be. However, IMO displaying children in overt sexual poses crosses the line. And for me personally the line has been crossed with that Brooke Shields photo.
Clyde-B:
--- Quote from: Mikaela on October 02, 2009, 12:53:20 pm ---Oh come on, Clyde, have you seen the photo?
I mean, I don't disagree with your right to think it's art and perfectly OK displayed in the public space. But the baby Jesus isn't normally pictured in a suggestive pose with equally suggestive props, sporting a "come hither" look and covered in gleaming baby oil.
--- End quote ---
I saw it. To me it looks weird, like they photoshopped her head onto a young boy's body.
I'm afraid those baby beauty pageants for 5 and 6 year olds strike me as more sexually suggestive than that.
Clyde-B:
--- Quote from: Mikaela on October 02, 2009, 01:03:28 pm ---No need to go back to the Renaissance - remember when Ashcroft had them cover up the boobs of the Justitia statue he gave speeches in front of? :laugh:
The difference, to me, is that the nude human form in itself is not at all offensive. And sexually explicit nudes aren't offensive as a general rule either, though in some situations they may be. However, IMO displaying children in overt sexual poses crosses the line. And for me personally the line has been crossed with that Brooke Shields photo.
--- End quote ---
It wasn't too long ago when the naked human form was considered pornographic. I thought that was resolved, already.
And, for me, naked children hold even less potential to be pornographic.
I have some friends who's two year old son is naked in a lot of pictures because they still have trouble getting him to keep his clothes on. :laugh: Of course that gives them more potential to embarrass him when he grows up and it's payback time! ;D
Monika:
I´ve seen the photo and thought it was interesting. I felt slightly provoked, but in a good way. It´s in the eye of the beholder, as always.
delalluvia:
--- Quote ---No need to go back to the Renaissance - remember when Ashcroft had them cover up the boobs of the Justitia statue he gave speeches in front of? laugh
--- End quote ---
Heh. Yeah, forgot about that. [shakes head]
--- Quote from: Clyde-B on October 02, 2009, 01:16:23 pm ---It wasn't too long ago when the naked human form was considered pornographic. I thought that was resolved, already.
--- End quote ---
Apparently not. There was actually some rich Arab living in Beverly Hills a decade or so ago who decided to paint his nude classic statues to look as real as possible. Done in white plain marble, they were apparently 'artistic' and 'historical'. Painted to look real, they were pornographic. He was forced to cease and desist.
Like that line from the movie re nude pictures of women "If they out of focus, they're art, if they're in focus, they're pornographic."
I might give more credence to the "it was just a naked kid picture", if she wasn't slicked down with oil, hair done up with makeup on. And no, it wasn't a Coppertone ad.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version