Child Porn!
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- ********
Is this image child porn?
http://hitsusa.com/blog/140/klar…
Owned by Elton John, by a famous photographer. Seized by police from an exhibition at an art gallery
- Leigh0
i not clicking that link.
- GT_10
Porn is created with the intent and purpose to cause sexual arousal.
This is not porn.
- BonSeff0
i guess it could be porn if yer a perv. but to me its a crappy photo and shouldn't be in a gallery on that principal
- kerus0
not child porn
not very interesting either
- k0na_an0k0
1. that's not porn
2. that's not artthat is a super shitty photo that has no business in an art gallery. it belongs in a stack of other shitty poloroids in a box in someones crawlspace.
- kerus0
exactly bonseff
- Drno0
for once i totally agree with GT1
for my yearbook pic, chose a picture of me naked on a bed (i had 8 month dammit)
so if i follow the thought of these closet pervert, its child porn
dammm puritan
- k0na_an0k0
damn, i need to read a thread before i post.
(what i should have said)
i agree with bonseff and kerus.
- kerus0
seriously if that is what people call fucking art now my mom would be a millionaire
- bulletfactory0
not clicking it
is it a Maplethorpe?
- Jaline0
i guess it could be porn if yer a perv. but to me its a crappy photo and shouldn't be in a gallery on that principal
BonSeff
(Sep 27 07, 05:40)Yup
---------
Porn is created with the intent and purpose to cause sexual arousal.
This is not porn.
GT_1
(Sep 27 07, 05:39)Art/media doesn't always end up with the same message it started out with. People always interpret things differently. Something could start off as one thing and be interpreted by others as actually being pornography (etc.)
They have to have the insight to imagine the various responses they may receive from a piece of art and then decide if it's worth putting up.
This photo is just a photo to me. Nothing more, nothing less.
- TheBlueOne0
A) not child porn
B) proof why I totally and utterly despise the art world
C) Crappy picture
D) For godsakes give those children to Federline so they can have a proper upbringing..
- ********0
I think its a facinating picture. I think it challenges our public morality. I think it asks disturbing questions of the viewer and questions his/her gaze.
The pure innocence of two young girls playing - completely unaware of the sanctification of their bodies. The girls cunt splayed towards our face asking us "why are we looking there? what interest do we have in that?". Two sister's, possibly, in the most typical domestic setting doing what kids do. But captured like that, we question the context
"Though this is a perfectly natural moment, the dark open hole of the girl’s vagina is harrowing. My first thought is that she is about to be raped, or maybe is being raped already, by me, by my looking. I come to my senses. She’s at home, playing with a friend and laughing. She’s fine. I’m the one who’s afraid."
- k0na_an0k0
kuz, that's kind of cool you can see the photo like that. you looked at it more than the quick scan/glance i gave it. nicely done.
- Jaline0
*writes down kuz's post for use in essay
- BonSeff0
we all have photos like that..
no need to go all art fag on it
(jk)
- neue75_bold0
All I saw was lunch...?
- Jaline0
oh dear
- TheBlueOne0
See, while I do appreciate what kuz wrote there, it still reminds me of the Philosophy of Artistic Aesthetic classes I had in college where people would spend an hour arguing whether a hammer or an orange was a truer work of art. I wanted to kill those people...
- kelpie0
oh my word, hahahaha