posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 11:15 AM
I think people are mixing artistic display and sadistic display. If a depiction of sex between children serves the story, it needs to be done, I
have no problem with that. What bugs me is that now, an "artist" has to show you everything in its gruesome details... It's the easiest artistic
form of display.
I remember an old issue of Captain America, penciled by John Byrne. In that issue, Cap had to decapitate an old foe who was a vampire. Byrne was
uneasy portraying Cap as a killer. So instead of showing us the decapitation per se, he ARTISTICALLY rendered it via the shadows of the characters,
projected on the wall beside them. It was dramatic, intense and shocking at best. We suffered with Cap having to go to that length. It would have been
banal otherwise. And the danger lies here, in the apparent banality of the action being displayed. In anyway, when kids are depicted as having
sex, it should not be about the act, but for the implications for the characters, so the story can advance... Otherwise, porn flicks are chef
d'oeuvre because we can see people do it! Who really thinks that Basic Instinct is a great movie? Change all the explicit sex scenes to suggestive
ones and no one would have noticed it.
If it is shown, it NEEDS to serve the story, otherwise it is nothing more than vulgar exposure.
That is why a nudist in a nudist zone is left at peace by the authorities and that a flasher gets arrested...
Or better yet, it's like comparing Playboy with Hustler, both are about naked women, but one is artistic in its presentation where the other is
simply explicit... Anyway, isn't a covered boob more exciting than a naked one? I think so...
Have a nice day all,