Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
In the name of Art (Read 17525 times)
RecFisher
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 347
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #45 - May 28th, 2008 at 8:48pm
 
Neferti wrote on May 27th, 2008 at 5:58pm:
What about Michaelangelo's David?



Was he 12 (he certainly wasn't in inches!)?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Neferti
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #46 - May 29th, 2008 at 6:09pm
 
"It is the statue of the young Israelite king David alone that almost certainly holds the title of the most recognizable stone sculpture in the history of art. It has become regarded as a symbol both of strength and youthful human beauty. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, at the moment that he decides to battle with Goliath. It came to symbolize the defense of civic liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, an independent city state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states and by the hegemony of the Medici themselves. This interpretation was also encouraged by the original setting of the sculpture outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence. The completed sculpture was unveiled on 8 September 1504."

Wink


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
RecFisher
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 347
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #47 - May 29th, 2008 at 10:18pm
 
Yes, yes, but how old was he?

Can I put a different perspective on this debate:

If the Police suspected someone of being a paedophile, raided their computer and found nothing but these so called "artistic" photos, do people think they would be charged? 

What is the legal definition of pornography?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
oceanz
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #48 - Jun 2nd, 2008 at 9:50pm
 
follwing this link will take you to an image of one of the offending pics mantra was referring to..it is not pixelled however so be warned..


http://polanimal.rack111.com/viewtopic.php?t=24

I agree with mantra on this topic..totally inappropriate..

I find nothing offensive regarding sculptures..most are very beautiful.
Back to top
 

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #49 - Jun 3rd, 2008 at 11:25am
 
We can probably blame pedophiles for society's suspicion of art depicting underage subjects. We've lost our innocence as a society because of these monsters. It has become a taboo subject.

There is a different attitude in some cultures. France is one country that has a totally different stance on nudity and developing sexuality. In some ways it's a lot healthier than it is here or in the US.

I guess we've got to draw the line in the sand somewhere, but I think we've gone too far when it comes to artistic images being banned.
 
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #50 - Jun 6th, 2008 at 5:53pm
 
Henson is now free to continue his art.  The DPP and police can't make a case to charge him.

The Australian poll so far has 42% against the nudes now to be exhibited and 58% for.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
DILLIGAF
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1259
The greens are red
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #51 - Jun 11th, 2008 at 6:11pm
 
muso wrote on Jun 3rd, 2008 at 11:25am:
We can probably blame pedophiles for society's suspicion of art depicting underage subjects. We've lost our innocence as a society because of these monsters. It has become a taboo subject.


Its always been around.
Especially in religious circles.
Back to top
 

Total anti-marxist and anti-left wing. The Right is Right.&&&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49042
At my desk.
Don't come the latex burka with me about sick fetishes
Reply #52 - Jul 17th, 2008 at 1:18pm
 
Now let's not get off topic just because the article also mentions Muslims...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24030640-23375,00.html

FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims are notorious for insisting that women dress in what is supposed to be pervert-proof clothing.

Apparently the female form is so provocative -- so much like an open can of Whiskas -- that exposed males risk instant transformation into one of those noxious tom cats that squirts urine on to antique couch legs, always has a post-fight pus drain hanging out its skull and inseminates everything that moves. Ensuring that women are always attired in a modesty-preserving tarpaulin or one-man tent is therefore the only way to keep them safe.

Hardline anti-pedophile activists have a similar view about the provocative nature of babies' and children's bodies.

Apparently scantily clad kiddies are so intrinsically irresistible -- so much like an open invitation to sex criminals -- that pedophiles who see them will automatically begin committing a whole lot more offences. Ensuring that unclothed or "inappropriately" attired sprogs are banned from nappy ads, clothing catalogues and art is therefore the only way to keep them safe.

Rabid Islamists and fanatical child protectionists are right to accuse humans of being a libidinous and lascivious bunch.

Beneath the tacky, timber veneer of civilisation lies a mess of ragingly inappropriate urges.

We covet our neighbours' asses, make Benny Hill honking noises in our heads and commit an outrageous allsort of fornications.

And yes, sometimes some of us commit sins of the flesh that are so unforgivable we should be locked up forever. Where these two groups of extremists are wrong, however, is in claiming that it's possible to cover up everything that could ever arouse an improper impulse.

Here are just a few of the things that'd have to go if we wanted to make sure nothing in our social landscape turned anyone on:

Footwear, lack of footwear and The Sound of Music. Foot fixations are the common cold of the fetish world. One Australian sex worker has a client who calls from a phone booth in a country town to talk about his difficultly keeping control come summer when ladies get about in racy, open-toed shoes (his equivalent of a plunging neckline, especially if toe cleavage is involved). Another website recommends The Sound of Music for titillating glimpses of underaged female toes;
Sneezing. Common colds are also the common colds of the fetish world. A recent contributor to the Sneeze Fetish Forum says the first time he got aroused by sneezing was watching Monstro the whale achoo in Walt Disney's Pinocchio. This site also contains a section devoted to handkerchief, tissue and nose-blowing fetishes;
High-cut clothing. Straight lacers who think only low-cut clobber is morally problematic will be unsettled to learn that a regular client of a Sydney bondage parlour has an unholy obsession with super-snug collars and neckties. He wears his pyjamas buttoned high and tight, pays dominatrices to chat with him about the different types of unforgiving neckwear he enjoys: Peter Pan collars, polo necks, skivvies, bow ties, scarves, jewelled chokers and so on; and
Balloons. Balloon Buddies was established in 1976 as a pen pal club. It boasts that it is now the No1 place for straight, bi, and gay folk who love the, ahem, "erotic suspense of a simple toy balloon".
Salacious websites also exist for people with a fetish for denim, conservative blouses, boiler suits, washing-up gloves, scuba gear, surgical braces, food fights, dental work, inflatable pool furniture, very large women who accidentally sit on very thin men, people who dress up in fluffy animal costumes (aka furverts) and -- just to give all those Islamists the vapours -- latex burkas.

If all this still hasn't convinced you of the impossibility of expunging everything which has the potential to get punters hot under their freakishly high collars, consider the mysterious world of people with an erotic attraction to invisible women. To you, it's just an empty space. To the invisiphiliac salivating next to you, it's lewd-erific.

So, please. While it's crucial to police unacceptable behaviour and stamp out all forms of child pornography, let's not allow the fetishists to define what's hot and what's not. Otherwise absolutely everything we see, can't see and shoot snot from will have to carry XXX ratings.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #53 - Jul 17th, 2008 at 11:12pm
 
RecFisher wrote on May 29th, 2008 at 10:18pm:
Yes, yes, but how old was he?



The bible did not say how old David was when he slew Goliath. However, it is generally accepted among theologians and scholars that he was between 12-16 years old.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
oceanz
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Auzgurl..

Posts: 3531
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #54 - Aug 2nd, 2008 at 5:53pm
 
same age as Hopward?
Back to top
 

&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins"
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #55 - Aug 2nd, 2008 at 6:06pm
 
What a geek! Who would've known that he would grow up to be a despot.  Wink

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
DILLIGAF
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1259
The greens are red
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #56 - Aug 21st, 2008 at 9:42pm
 
Looks like Mr Spock. Grin
Back to top
 

Total anti-marxist and anti-left wing. The Right is Right.&&&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #57 - Oct 27th, 2008 at 8:10pm
 
Very good news - and about time.  Henson will have to find something "less interesting" to photograph.


The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, announced yesterday the Government has accepted a recommendation by the former Supreme Court judge James Wood that the leeway given to artists to depict children as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or children engaged in sexual activity should be removed from the Crimes Act.

He does not want to remove the child protection, scientific, medical or legal defences; just the artistic because it "would seem to overlook the rationale for the offence, which is to protect children against the harm that can flow from being the subject of pornographic images."

But sometime in the next week or so the Australia Council will be revealing more of its plans to demand all artists, galleries and publications sign up to protocols on the depiction of children or lose all federal arts funding.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Kytro
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #58 - Oct 28th, 2008 at 2:50pm
 
This isn't good news at all.

Henson has done this sort of work for a long time before someone decided it was somehow wrong.

This is not about protecting children, it is about people enforcing their viewpoint of what is artistic onto others.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #59 - Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:01pm
 
Quote:
This isn't good news at all.

Henson has done this sort of work for a long time before someone decided it was somehow wrong.

This is not about protecting children, it is about people enforcing their viewpoint of what is artistic onto others.



Henson used older teenagers in his previous work and the "photos" could be described as very sensual bordering on mild, mild porn - but the models were old enough to make their own decisions.

These recent photos are different altogether and take on a whole new meaning.  Henson was pushing the boundaries and thought he could get away with it.

This is an extract from a very astute commentator (don't faint Grendel) - Andrew Bolt.  His comments are directed towards another commentator who is pro-Henson.  Bolt sums it up perfectly.


David Marr mocks moves to scrap the “Henson defence” - the legal leeway given to artists to paint children nude:


"David Marr -  What the Henson affair showed was the wide gulf that exists between the law’s idea of pornography as set out in the NSW Crimes Act, and the widespread notion that has been growing over the past decade that just about any image of a child naked or scantily or precociously dressed is pornographic. "


If the law starts changing under that sort of pressure, Caravaggio might be in trouble.

It’s not the first time that Henson’s apologists have likened him to Caravaggio, to defend the photographer’s right to strip 12-year-old girls and portray them in sexualised poses. But they are either deceitful or ignorant.

A challenge: Can Marr nominate a single instance in which Caravaggio stripped and painted a naked pre-teen girl in a sexual context? I think he’ll find even Caravaggio, a murderer, drew the line at that. Painting imaginary male cherubs or a male saint in nude play is the closest he ever got.

And if Renaissance Italy is now to set our moral laws today, what other mores from that era should we adopt?  Vendettas, an openly corrupt papacy, authoritarian government, the subjugation of women?

Find yourself another excuse, David.  
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print