It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Art or obscenity? A nude model is arrested at the Met

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


That is one of those things were most people understand what your saying, and might agree, but no one can explain why.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I find it ironic that American children can see blood, guts, mayhem, torture, murder and all sorts of violence on the TV/cable/video games;
but somehow need to be protected from the sight of a female body.

Is it any wonder that we are so screwed up?


I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I have wondered the same thing many times.

No problem with kids seeing blood, guts and violence on TV, but heaven forbid they should see a little nudity or the world will come to an end. I think it's more of a problem in America, and the European priorities seem a bit different and more sensible. Americans need to get their priorities straight.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Just a question, not an arguement.

does that mean none of you would have a problem with your significant other standing nude in public? Especially for display?


Wouldn't bother me at all. My wife's a babe, if I had my way, she'd be nude all the time!!!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   


look at the kid in the background. Mommy what is the naked lady doing?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
You people just don't get it. The naked human body is the product of Satan, designed to corrupt the mind's of our young with unspeakable evil.

Those poor souls present had their rights infringed upon. Therefore, this was a noble use of tax dollars.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Uhhh...Gonna need pics. For uh...Y'know? Reference?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
There's a difference between a statue of a naked man or woman and an actual naked human. One will stay in one pose and never move a fraction while a living person will sit on a bench and possibly leave a mark for the next person to sit on.

There's nothing wrong with nudity in a place meant for that activity, whether it's in an artist's studio, a private home, a club or a nudist colony. The problems arise when people take it upon themselves to strip in public places, usually for sexually charged reasons. I'd bet $20 that nobody posting here wants to see a naked man anywhere near a children's playground.

Sure, all the guys would love to see a naked woman just about anywhere as long as she's pleasing to the eye. What about a 60 year old woman of 290 pounds? Want her near the kiddies in the sandbox?

Didn't think so. Maybe that's why there's laws against public nudity besides the obvious health hazards hershey kisses might leave on the swing set.

Eeeeeuw.

The photographer and his model should have gotten permission for the shoot. Simple as that. But I'm guessing they got what they were really after. Publicity.




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I say slap a fine in the hands of every new born infant the moment they leave the womb. How dare they subject a room full of strangers to full frontal nudity.


Originally posted by There Once Was Man
There's a difference between a statue of a naked man or woman and an actual naked human. One will stay in one pose and never move a fraction while a living person will sit on a bench and possibly leave a mark for the next person to sit on.



Ummm id be more worried about what the poor model would catch from sitting on the bench



Originally posted by There Once Was Man
There's nothing wrong with nudity in a place meant for that activity, whether it's in an artist's studio, a private home, a club or a nudist colony. The problems arise when people take it upon themselves to strip in public places, usually for sexually charged reasons. I'd bet $20 that nobody posting here wants to see a naked man anywhere near a children's playground.


For what reason would said naked male be doing at the playground to begin with?... thats taking an example to the extreme, of course that situation is wrong and no one would agree otherwise. None of us are saying drop it where you want it, but this threads topic is an example of prudishness and fear of the human body to its ridiculous conclusion.


Originally posted by There Once Was Man

Sure, all the guys would love to see a naked woman just about anywhere as long as she's pleasing to the eye. What about a 60 year old woman of 290 pounds? Want her near the kiddies in the sandbox?

Didn't think so. Maybe that's why there's laws against public nudity besides the obvious health hazards hershey kisses might leave on the swing set.

Eeeeeuw.


Sure why not would be a great lesson for the kids to learn the result of a lifetime of poor diet and excersise
... hey junior want a twinky?... ah no thanks mom pass the salad.

Its funny about that picture... notice how its the mother thats looking at the woman and not the kid (sure its timing, but hey
), oh and thats another thing, whats with American TV and media and the pixeling out of butt cracks (even the mere hint of one) for crying out loud? A woman (or man) in a thong is no different but ones hidden for viewer safety while the other is (mostly) not.

I also vouche for the mankini and mansier, after all men have nothing different up top than women apart from the size, yet they can wander around topless all over the place, how dare they (err 'we' I should say)

Edit:- by the way anyone else notice that they are doing this is the room full of full metal plate armor
kinda an interesting statement, the vulnerable naked body in a room full of metalic full body protection designed to protect said vulnerable flesh
for that i give the photographer a


[edit on 29-8-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 




does that mean none of you would have a problem with your significant other standing nude in public? Especially for display?


I like this kind of question - sucks all the extra nonsense out of the argument

if it didn't bother him - it wouldn't bother me

nudity is personal - and not everyone likes being on display

but I think it's bizarre how strongly we object to nudity here - how it's seen as being perverse

watch 10 minutes of Dancing With the Stars - which is a hugely popular, family oriented show - and explain to me the difference between being nude - and not being nude :-)

it's not much of a real difference - and it's very sexual (the show)

it was an art museum - so in that sense I don't see the big deal

he didn't have permission - so technically it was against the law I guess...

but it would have been a very good opportunity I think for parents to NOT make a big deal out of it

here in the Denver art museum there's a sculpture of a nude - been a permanent exhibit for years:



Linda, an incredibly lifelike sculpture of a sleeping woman by John DeAndrea, is one of the most popular and frequently asked about works in the DAM collection. Below, conservator Jessica Fletcher responds to commonly asked questions about DeAndrea's works.

www.denverartmuseum.org...

she's not got any of her naughty bits exposed - but she's still naked - and very lifelike

life is funny - if she were a real live girl - I suppose she might be arrested



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Just another case of doing something stupid to get a specific reaction.

They knew exactly what would happen and did it anyway. It gives them the opportunity to 'prove a point'.

Oohh! Americans are prudes! Shame on them for not being open minded and enlightened!

Childish games.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spreadthetruth
You people just don't get it. The naked human body is the product of Satan, designed to corrupt the mind's of our young with unspeakable evil.

Those poor souls present had their rights infringed upon. Therefore, this was a noble use of tax dollars.




Are you for real? If Satan created anything, it was people that push ridiculous thoughts into peoples' minds that have absolutely no merit or value whatsoever. Every "good" or "bad" thing is started by a thought, and that thought usually originates from one persons personal opinion. And that one person usually has the money and power to push that thought onto everyone else. Nudity is nudity. But then you have people exploiting it via television, magazines, books, etc, all to make a buck or 10 million. Everything that we are told IS bad, is some other a*holes justification to charge us for something to counter it. Nudity bad = Buy my Clothes $$$ // Drugs are Bad = Pay for the Drug War $$$ // Free Energy is bad = Oil is better $$$. It's all about control and money. It's no wonder this floating round rock is full of %*#t.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
the naked body has been a subject of fascination and an object of lust for thousands of years.
it's that part of our existence that ensures the species survives.
man (well, actually, men) has been drawing the human female figure for centuries - it's why i refer the whole thing to the age-old question: "which came first, the chicken, or the egg?"................ok, a new twist to that: which came first: pornography, or masturbation?

to make a long songy short: drawing, painting, sculpting and photographing the naked human figure is not really that noble an activity, nor is posing for same
it really is all about sex....really!
i have been a naked male model at eight post-secondary institutions, with more than one hundred instructors.
personally, i believe the last pornographer not using a camera was the brilliant austrian artist egon schiele.

for my experiences and observations as a naked male model, check out my blog at www.themodelundraped.blogspot.com



new topics




 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join