[QUOTE=darcy010;24404271]I think everyone considerers this art. Everyone knows Bill Hensen is not a pedophile. But it would still be horrific for family voters if Kevin Rudd at the time allowed the art show to go on.[/QUOTE]
Kevin Rudd is an moronic, ignorant idiot. He just publicly announced Bill Henson's work as Child Pornography without seeing the works. Probably felt stupid afterwards but he just went along with the public outrage like a sheep.
I absolutely hate him.
[QUOTE=Mizzy;24404285]Kevin Rudd is an moronic, ignorant idiot. He just publicly announced Bill Henson's work as Child Pornography without seeing the works. Probably felt stupid afterwards but he just went along with the public outrage like a sheep.
I absolutely hate him.[/QUOTE]
welcome to the world of politics
You can't call a painting CP, I mean how can you without a doubt determine the age of an arrangement of paintbrush strokes?
[QUOTE=b4nny;24404354]You can't call a painting CP, I mean how do you determine the age of an arrangement of paintbrush strokes?[/QUOTE]
Err.
Bill Henson is a photographic artist.
But the same still applies.
[QUOTE=b4nny;24404354]You can't call a painting CP, I mean how can you without a doubt determine the age of an arrangement of paintbrush strokes?[/QUOTE]
Try reading the OP again.
It's art and some of it can be really good. Sexual stuff is usually pretty obvious, but when it's art it usually has a different vibe.
Shoving expired spagettiohs up your vagoo is apparently art. so i guess nudity qualifies as art as well.
[QUOTE=Mizzy;24403879][url]http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://photography-collection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Bill-Henson.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.photography-collection.com/%3Fp%3D285&usg=__PGHGy9X2GCjQH0h6a_QL5oGiZNs=&h=443&w=300&sz=20&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=c6zC83U4S3KOFM:&tbnh=151&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBill%2BHenson%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=471&ei=3MR4TJ-UK5CisQPs3dnsCg&oei=3MR4TJ-UK5CisQPs3dnsCg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=77&ty=52[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Lol I love how it says in the backround that the guys art got closed for teenage nudity.
[QUOTE=GooeyChicken;24404592]Lol I love how it says in the backround that the guys art got closed for teenage nudity.[/QUOTE]
That's why it's a controversy.
Good example of porn called art is the "furry art" :byodood:
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;24404202]So, is the website metart considered art or porn[/QUOTE]
I would say art... but at the same time porn.
I hope I was helpfull
[QUOTE=Sjokolade;24404668]I would say art... but at the same time porn.
I hope I was helpfull[/QUOTE]
Informative
ahhh.... Conservatives...
"It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder alone; the maker's intention, if there is a maker, has nothing to do with our response to some object."
[editline]08:08PM[/editline]
so its pretty much subjective.
[QUOTE=Mizzy;24404043]^ clearly does not understand the point of this thread.[/QUOTE]
Don't you understand humor?
I meant that people can be looking at sites like MetArt and say that it's nude art, when they're basically treating it as pornography
[QUOTE=animephreak135;24404100]Clearly someone who saw "nudity" in the thread, came in, opened the first image link without reading anything else, and then posted his thoughts. You do know who Bill Henson is, don't you?[/QUOTE]
pretty much this
Wasn't that chick underage or something? That's why they were getting all uppity?
[QUOTE=Super_Poo;24405118]Wasn't that chick underage or something? That's why they were getting all uppity?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, she was. But they had permission from her and both her parents, still, his works were seized at the exhibition because some people took personal offence to it.
Why does it matter if something is art or not?
Because we call it art it is completely acceptable, right?
Why should something need to be art to be okay, it is stupid.
"Oh yeah that dude sticking his dick in that chick is art... so yeah"
Who gives a shit? it is still a dude sticking his dick in a chick no matter what we call it.
Are you saying that dudes sticking their dicks in chicks is unacceptable?
[QUOTE=L'ordinateur;24405553]Why does it matter if something is art or not?
Because we call it art it is completely acceptable, right?
Why should something need to be art to be okay, it is stupid.
"Oh yeah that dude sticking his dick in that chick is art... so yeah"
Who gives a shit? it is still a dude sticking his dick in a chick no matter what we call it.[/QUOTE]
Something doesn't need to be art to be okay. In fact, that's completely wrong. Some artists intend for their work to push social acceptance boundaries, to be "not okay", according to your phraseology.
As to why it matters if something is art or not...
Well, there's a difference between a picture and an artwork, an artwork has an intended meaning whereas a picture is just aesthetic.
Whether this is art or not, there will be some people that will consider this CP.
Maybe CP and Art at the same time.
If this would be 100% legal it will be bound to be used as an excuse for CP by some people.
Therefore this should not be allowed.
Artist sometimes mean to shock people with their art but this is an area where that should not be done.
[QUOTE=taipan;24405673]Whether this is art or not, there will be some people that will consider this CP.
Maybe CP and Art at the same time.
If this would be 100% legal it will be bound to be used as an excuse for CP by some people.
Therefore this should not be allowed.
Artist sometimes mean to shock people with their art but this is an area where that should not be done.[/QUOTE]
Why do people always look past the innocence in something and automatically assume that it's child pornography?
If someone consider's it CP, then that's just reflective of their state of mind.
Really... there's no area where Art isn't allowed. Just, by the way.
Art goes everywhere man goes.
I wound't go as far as saying everything artist thinks is art is art, but pics in OP are art aparrotly.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;24404202]So, is the website metart considered art or porn[/QUOTE]
Uh... uh...
[img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/psyboom.gif[/img_thumb]
Also this is sort of like the massive shitstorm caused by that "Virgin Killer" album by Scorpions. Although, that girl was like 10 or something
Well, the intentions were clearly for art purposes... but to publicly display them? I can see why some people might get upset.
Personally, I don't even think it's very good art in the first place.
I don't know, is this pornography?
[img]http://www.the-artfile.com/gallery/artists/giger/landschap2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24406426]I don't know, is this pornography?
[img]http://www.the-artfile.com/gallery/artists/giger/landschap2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Ugh, yuck, no.
Pornography is made with the intent of sexual arousal.
Okay.
Who would get off on that?
Yuck.
[QUOTE=Mizzy;24405757]Why do people always look past the innocence in something and automatically assume that it's child pornography?
If someone consider's it CP, then that's just reflective of their state of mind.
Really... there's no area where Art isn't allowed. Just, by the way.[/QUOTE]
Art has boundry's.
Art can be used to extend boundry's
What you posted is on the border,
If more artist do it it might get acceptable.
Not art but simmilar situation:
Try wearing a miniskirt 100 years ago, it would be un heard of and you would probably be arrested for exposure.
Now nobody cares.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.