Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police., page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 05:01 PM by deadline527
Originally posted by tpeele
reply to
post by tezzajw



Well I, being a 15 year old, think that it is totally wrong to take naked pictures of anyone under 18. It is just...ugh! I can't describe it. You get my point right?


So you're saying that you find all of the women in your school "ugh" if they were naked because they are under 18? When I was in high school I knew plenty of girls who were sexy as hell and under 18 and when I was under 18 you're damn right I would love to see them naked. The age of consent in some states is only 14, so you're already well over the age required to have sex - so whats wrong with seeing someone naked?


reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 10:15 PM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by tpeele



Yes, I do get your point, and that is why you won't be allowed to vote for another three years. It's called "maturity" and "life-experience", something the law gives you time to collect before allowing you to meddle with it.

reply to post by jamie83



No, that is not what many peple are saying. That is what YOU want them to be saying, but that's because you can only think in didactic forms.

to wit...

Originally posted by jamie83
reply to post by stratsys-sws



Robbie,

Your "it's people like you post" was one of the most self-righteous, condescending pieces of crap I've ever read on ATS.


Nice strong opening. Certainly judgemental and only slightly self-righteous, but for the real irony, why don't you open mouth and insert both feet?

This issue has zero to do with artistic expression, or drawing a conclusion that nude photos of prepubescent girls are sexual vs. artistic.


Not at all condescending or in any way correct.

The issue has everything to do with protecting the welfare of minor children so that they will not be exploited for financial gain


See, that bit is actually true. That is the reason the images were pulled. But, that is only the beginning of the issue, not the end of the issue. And this

by placing them in a position to strip naked and be photographed so their guardians, and a guy with a camera who calls himself an "artist", can pocket some extra spending money.


is so perfectly self-righteous that it takes the sweet, baked flour product. Talk about editorialising. You continually trot this emotionally-charged, intellectually-feeble crap out in your determination to paint Henson and anyone who defends him as a pseudo-paedophile or tacit supporter of such while depicting the Nazis supressing artistic expression as living saints.

"It's people like you" who actively make public discourse on sensitive subjects impossible. It's people like you who deliberately miscast the facts of issues to achieve an emotional end. It's people like you who make the world a duller, greyer and poorer place to live.

As for societies in deep trouble, the Taliban had things to say about art, too.


reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 11:39 PM by Jazzyguy
reply to post by intrepid



Of all form authority such as religious and political authority, society (the people authority) has the most right to determine what is right and wrong. Not just one artist, one intrepid or one Jazzyguy.

The opinion of one society has more weight than an opinion of one group of individuals. If you want to change the opinion of a society, you should do so, instead of just condemning and dismissing society's opinion as a whole.

Let the system, the society, the authority, the police, the court sort it out.

[edit on Fri, 30 May 08 by Jazzyguy]


reply posted on 30-5-2008 @ 01:31 AM by juggaloco
reply to post by tezzajw



I believe this is some what wrong, i mean if its illegal for a person to have naked pictures or children on there computer or what ever then why should it be legal for a artist to have photo's of naked girl's displayed in his gallery even a celebrity i believe Kate Blanchet was defending him nothing against her though she's gorgess but still. and then there is the parent's why would they allow it ? weather the parents allowed it or not they failed to protect there daughter's they literally sold her for money i believe.


reply posted on 30-5-2008 @ 03:15 AM by stratsys-sws
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV



Cheers HowlrunnerIV nice to know someone else wasn't too impressed by the hipocracy and down right rudeness of that statement!
I think I hit a raw nerve though, so I'll say no more about the conduct of that poster and his general disregard for everyone else on this forum.

It seems one of the key objections by our little screamer in here is not the actual art itself, it seems they are offended because it is apparently being done for profit?
Ok...well let me pose this question.....if they were donated to a free to enter art gallery, annonymously, where no person could said to be exploited would that still be wrong?

Cheers

Robbie



reply posted on 1-6-2008 @ 04:26 AM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by tezzajw



Ah, good old Eddie McGuire, the man with only 25 letters in his alphabet...

Eddie, stick to the football. You screwed up the GP coverage, you embarrassed the whole country everytime you asked us "Who wants to be a miyonaire?" and you even manage to misquote the rules of Aussie Rules live on air.

Eddie, commenting on Magpie games while being the president of the club perfectly fits the description of "conflict of interest".

Commenting on art while having no brain also fits that description.


reply posted on 1-6-2008 @ 10:12 AM by Matt_Mulder
reply to post by Nammu



hey nammu, you wanna see the pics?
google-ize the words " bill henson australia" and the very first pic should give you a hint about his photo serie.
Personally, I don't care about seeing teenage girls like that, but I understand the scandal...Art is Art, no matter what our good westerners vices are...


reply posted on 1-6-2008 @ 11:34 AM by Anonymous ATS




reply posted on 2-6-2008 @ 03:29 AM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by craig732
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
And we should at ALL costs fight to keep them innocent and protect them from those who prey on their innocence.


Does this apply only to nudity or to other things as well?

Does your "at all costs" prevent your children from seeing violence?

Some of the stuff I see on The Cartoon Network is pretty violent.


And not in the "cartoon" way. Let's face it, Itchy and Scratchy were funny because they were WAY more violent than an old Loony Tune...but then you see the original Tom and Jerry and suddenly Itchy and Scratchy aren't that out there, after all.

It ain't just the violence. Some of the social attitudes would bring protests and boycotts if produced today.

Cartoon Network Asia still shows the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, and I mean OLD, from back when Tom's house had a black housekeeper. We never see her face, but she's overweight, "waddles" around the house, wears slippers, socks and an apron and is fond of words such as "Lordy"...Jump forward to the fifties and sixties and Tom has moved into an apartment in the inner city, where black people simply don't exist...

So, where do you draw the line when it comes to protecting kids' innocence?

reply to
post by jamie83



If you're referring to this picture *beware, possibly offensive image*, then Fred Nile has a candle with your name on it.

All I could do was search the girl's face, looking for, I don't know...Trying to find out what was in her eyes and what she was thinking. That is one seriously compelling image.

In a gallery, blown up to larger-than-normal size, I'm sure that girl's face stops crowds.

What is she thinking?


reply posted on 3-6-2008 @ 10:53 AM by TrailGator
Originally posted by Matt_Mulder
reply to
post by Nammu


Art is Art, no matter what our good westerners vices are...


hmmm...so Matt, if someone takes a gun and shoots you in the head, and an artistic photographer captures it on film and it displays your brains being blown out, and they display it as art under the genre of 'gruesome death' pictures or something similar...then we should applaud that as art, huh?

now pay attention here, I am not talking about the person that shot you, I am talking about the artist photographer here....so thats alright to show anywhere as art? Is that the way you 'euro's' do it???

[edit on 3-6-2008 by TrailGator]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by TrailGator]
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



Freak interstate "Accident" in FL
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags
The Man Who Will Fall to Earth; Parachuting From Space
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
HMS Victory 1737 is to be raised from the sea, possible treasure!
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags
Rockclimbers would you take your 2 year old baby with you?
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
50% INCREASE IN UK PEOPLE FED BY CHARITY FOODBANKS
  Posted 0 days ago with 2 member flags