View Full Version : A topic about Art???
Sami4u
15-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Hi,
Did you hear about this.
Brooke Shields child nude or art.
My top story today
Free Womens Blogs Childhood Nude Replaced (http://freewomensblogs.com/2009/10/15/brooke-shields-childhood-nude-replaced/)
Well guys is it child porn or art?
Sami
Cryren8972
15-10-2009, 03:25 PM
It made me uncomfortable to look at...but I had no sexual arousal from it...
so is it porn? Or just wrong?
I go with just wrong.
Sami4u
15-10-2009, 03:34 PM
Hi,
The movie was made before I was born. This was no big deal back then or was it? You can still get the movie.
Sami
Porn.
And 10 y/o is too young for porn, IMO.
Muddy
15-10-2009, 04:47 PM
Absolutely inappropriate. A picture of a nude child is one thing. The setting in which the picture was taken, the presentation and who took the picture all make a difference. My wife and I have pictures of our girls in the tub when they were itsy. Is that porn? Hardly. But those pictures aren't going anywhere and there certainly won't be any taken when the girls are ten. Their sense of modesty and our respect for that wouldn't allow it now at ages 6 and 3.
That first picture of Brooke in particular is clearly designed to present her in a manner inconsistent and inappropriate for a ten year old. Maybe not porn, but very, very wrong.
julien_simon
15-10-2009, 05:01 PM
^what he said
this is very wrong and inappropriate. My father in law was in charge of a police department chasing pedophile around the world for a few years. There are some very nasty disgusting people out there.
It was probably a good idea not to have a porn or art poll, no one seems to want to commit to either. lol
julien_simon
15-10-2009, 07:34 PM
It was probably a good idea not to have a porn or art poll, no one seems to want to commit to either. lol
I don't believe it was either art or pron. It was just inappropriate bad taste.
Nude pictures of 10 year old's with makeup and such I think would rightly be considered porn.
Ferre
15-10-2009, 07:40 PM
I'm with Julien on this one, just inappropriate bad taste.
Well, at least Muddy said maybe. So that's one and a half to 3.
julien_simon
15-10-2009, 07:44 PM
well - if it is porn, it is porn for disgusting people because for the you and me of this world, it wouldn't be considered porn.
and porn for disgusting people is inappropriate bad taste :D
One thing that I'm fairly certain about, is that I would not come out and say, no, it is not porn.
well - if it is porn, it is porn for disgusting people because for the you and me of this world, it wouldn't be considered porn.
and porn for disgusting people is inappropriate bad taste :Dpor·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē)
n.
1.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2.
The presentation or production of this material.
3.
Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).
I'd say that the makeup is a dead giveaway.
julien_simon
15-10-2009, 07:57 PM
yeah but was this picture taken to create sexual arousal or just because the photographer had inappropriate bad taste? ;)
yeah but was this picture taken to create sexual arousal or just because the photographer had inappropriate bad taste? ;)Yeah, I'd say that the makeup and setting is a dead giveaway. I mean who the heck puts makeup on a naked 10 y/o and poses them in such a setting for a snap shot but a pornographer?
I'd sooner say that it was both than neither, but I'm sticking with porn.
And 10 y/o is too young for porn, IMO.
Is there a damn echo in here? lol
julien_simon
15-10-2009, 08:54 PM
Yeah, I'd say that the makeup and setting is a dead giveaway. I mean who the heck puts makeup on a naked 10 y/o and poses them in such a setting for a snap shot but a pornographer?
yeah - that's a good point.
a sick sick sick pornographer.
yeah - that's a good point.
a sick sick sick pornographer.Well, no I'd say just a child pornographer, I've seen the sick sick sick stuff, and that ain't it. lol
Like you said, there are some real sicko's out there.
Sami4u
16-10-2009, 02:13 AM
Hi,
Has anyone here seen the movie Pretty Baby?
xS7dB3-3SRE
Bad taste, Yes.
But, for a moment let's not talk about child porn.
Is it Art? What makes up Art?
Sami
Muddy
16-10-2009, 02:25 AM
Pedophilia is not art any more than pissing on your partner is.
Cryren8972
16-10-2009, 04:44 AM
I wonder how damaging this movie was to Brooke Shield's psyche...
Strong
16-10-2009, 07:29 AM
I don't think it was art. I think the photographer was trying to portray a 10 year old in a sexualized manner. Whatever his motives it was wrong. At least with hindsight we can say it is wrong, but when the picture was taken ... ?
I don't know what the prevailing consensus at the time was. Taking something out of time and filtering it through today's standards will always make the past seem freaky.
I suspect he thought he was being ground breaking at the time, but has since come to realise he broke the wrong ground. He took at step too far in the wrong direction. He should have buried the picture a long time ago. There was no reason for it to resurface now. It is probably being used to drum up business.
That, to me, seems to compound the mistake of taking the picture even more, he is now exploiting the controversy. The guy sucks as a human being.
Cryren8972
16-10-2009, 07:33 AM
I don't think it was art. I think the photographer was trying to portray a 10 year old in a sexualized manner. Whatever his motives it was wrong. At least with hindsight we can say it is wrong, but when the picture was taken ... ?
I don't know what the prevailing consensus at the time was. Taking something out of time and filtering it through today's standards will always make the past seem freaky.
I suspect he thought he was being ground breaking at the time, but has since come to realise he broke the wrong ground. He took at step too far in the wrong direction. He should have buried the picture a long time ago. There was no reason for it to resurface now. It is probably being used to drum up business.
That, to me, seems to compound the mistake of taking the picture even more, he is now exploiting the controversy. The guy sucks as a human being.
It says he took the picture to promote the movie "Pretty Baby". However, I'm with you in thinking he took it way too far. I don't understand either how a mother could let her child pose for this picture, then sign over the rights, much less be an actress in the movie. How far will people go to exploit their own children?
Strong
16-10-2009, 07:39 AM
The world is full of crazy people doing crazy things. Some do them to stay alive, but some defy explanation.
Cryren8972
16-10-2009, 07:51 AM
The world is full of crazy people doing crazy things. Some do them to stay alive, but some defy explanation.
I would assume in this case, it was financially motivated.
Art or porn? Could it be both? On the walls of a public gallery, or on a computer screen viewed by a fat naked guy?
What about the movies Lolita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(1962_film)) or Taxi Driver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_Driver)? Those both deal with young people and adult themes too, and are uncomfortable for that reason.
Ferre
16-10-2009, 08:37 AM
Pretty sick film about a pretty sick issue if you ask me.
Pretty Baby (1978) - Synopsis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/synopsis)
Cryren8972
16-10-2009, 09:12 AM
what I want to know is...how can this be displayed as art, when THIS had such dire consequences. Wal-Mart Sued By Couple Accused Of Child Exploitation Over Bath Photos
(http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/walmart-sued-by-couple-accused-of-child-exploitation-over-bath-photos.aspx?googleid=271308)
what I want to know is...how can this be displayed as art, when THIS had such dire consequences. Wal-Mart Sued By Couple Accused Of Child Exploitation Over Bath Photos
(http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/walmart-sued-by-couple-accused-of-child-exploitation-over-bath-photos.aspx?googleid=271308)
It was a different time.
In 1978, people turned a blind eye to that kind of shit.
Pedophile priests were transferred instead of defrocked and charged with a crime.
(In many places, they still are)
People barely gave a crap when Roman Polanski ditched his responsibility and his debt to society for bedding an underage girl. Only recently, has anyone done anything about it.
Political correctness has a lot to do with it too. It's now politically correct to burn people at the stake for the stupidest of things.
I'm not saying that pedophilia is excusable, not by a long shot.
But these days, people are more prone to a stronger reaction because it seems to be the thing to do, even before thinking about it.
ewomack
16-10-2009, 10:51 PM
Brooke went on to far more important things.
AXzR5b6HoIA
Sami4u
17-10-2009, 06:33 PM
Hi,
Only time I was every mad about a pic's of me was with my grandmother. She had this scrap book of childhood photos. Nude on a rug, in the tub, and so on.
What is it that make older people think it is soooo cute to show these pictures to anyone I date.
It was like damm grandma.
Sami
krisma5
19-10-2009, 03:19 AM
In my eyes it's porn and I didn't even look at all the photos. I didn't want to.
Ferre
19-10-2009, 04:21 AM
Did you guys know that Brooke Shields claimed in her memoires to have been a virgin until the age of 22?
Doesn't sound like someone who made 'porn'.
I'd say at age 10 she was more a participant than an author. I think it's an issue with the adults really.
Pretty sick film about a pretty sick issue if you ask me.
Pretty Baby (1978) - Synopsis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/synopsis)
Sounds more like a dull, but well shot movie according to the reviews I read. There a lots of great movies out there about sick topics though. Anyone else seen the movie?
I can't comment further on the movie having not seen it (or any of Brooke Shield's other work) but I don't think the pic of Brooke Shields (http://freewomensblogs.com/2009/10/15/brooke-shields-childhood-nude-replaced/) should have been taken down from the Tate.
From the DailyMail:
Yesterday critics called for the image of the star to be withdrawn from the new exhibition, which opens tomorrow, saying it was unacceptable
I wonder how many of these critics had seen the pic before denouncing it. I don't think it's pornographic but just a good photo. More like a young girl dressing up a grown woman.
what I want to know is...how can this be displayed as art, when THIS had such dire consequences. Wal-Mart Sued By Couple Accused Of Child Exploitation Over Bath Photos
(http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/walmart-sued-by-couple-accused-of-child-exploitation-over-bath-photos.aspx?googleid=271308)
PC crazyiness gone mad imho. Amazed at that sentence "But an employee at Wal-Mart thought the photos could be child pornography and called police." Could be? Obviously employees need to be vigilant, but seems a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. :3sad:
I wonder what the same employee would make of the amazing photographs of Sally Mann (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&q=sally+mann&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20)?
Sami4u
19-10-2009, 01:27 PM
I wonder what the same employee would make of the amazing photographs of Sally Mann (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&q=sally+mann&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20)?
Hi,
These pics can sure stir the emotions.
Comments later gotta go to work.
TTFN
Sami
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.