|
|
Post by TheSilentDemon on Nov 19, 2003 21:34:15 GMT -5
why as a country are we the only ones to sensor nudity and sexuality in tv and media. you want to know why. its because authority figures drill it into your mind that its taboo and uncivilized. why is it ok for an artist to draw a naked person in scenery or why is an artist able to prostrate naked sculpture/statues in public places like in Royal Oak (its a very nice statue by the way, very thought provoking. i'm not being sarcastic). why can't a woman posing nude in playboy be considered art. because society puts a big red sticker on it saying no no thats wrong don't look at these pictures here look at these over here that were done from an artist, they are ok. art is a form of expression. i don't think anybody has a qualm with that statement. so why can't u view nudity as a form of art also. why is acceptable for europian television to have nudity in it. because they were brought up to think that nudity is an everyday ocurrance and its not something outrageous or unnaceptable for them. we in the US need to start thinking out of the box and stop listening to the crys and yelps of politians and extremist mothers and just take nudity as a beautiful thing not something taboo and superstitious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 19, 2003 21:49:06 GMT -5
well, considering how we are the only culture to do that sort of thing, one could say that we are "thinking outside the box." but neways, i thought our society is two faced on the issue, they dont want nudity, sex, ect directly. but its still everywhere, just not blatant. at least half of the commercial messages (through tv, internet, billboards, ect) have a sexual message to it. personally, i dont care too much about nudity in movies, but i dont think it should be put in just have nudity in a movie. as for playboy being art......no way. its porn, sensless nudity.
|
|
|
|
Post by scott on Nov 19, 2003 22:42:51 GMT -5
why can't a woman posing nude in playboy be considered art. Because it isn't art.It is a women naked so guys can lust after her and then a bunch of articles about sex.Not art."Sensless nudity" if you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 19, 2003 22:50:21 GMT -5
exactly, there can be "art" with nudity of course; but it has to be art in the first place. playboy is made with the intent of getting horny guys to buy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by leprechauneddie on Nov 20, 2003 18:08:10 GMT -5
Exactly. The Chaun (as a meager artist) doesn't mind nudity in art or think that it's necessarily wrong, but there's a difference between art and porn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirk the Canary on Nov 20, 2003 22:40:25 GMT -5
damn straight you're meager! the only thing more meager than your art is....is.....is my art....DAMN! of all the times to be lacking for an insult!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSilentDemon on Nov 22, 2003 0:51:35 GMT -5
why can't it be considered art. your giving it the label of porn or an object of lustation. where does the line between porn and art get drawn. whats the difference of taking a picture of a naked chick versus drawing one. there isn't (only a lack of effort in taking a picture)
|
|
|
|
Post by Liek on Nov 22, 2003 12:02:48 GMT -5
Yeah, you can't really define art. Everybody has their own interpertation of what is and isn't art, so there's no use in arguing over it... It's like Mr. Hill (morality) telling us what we can and can't do right after he tells us that we have free will...
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 23, 2003 1:44:23 GMT -5
ok...porn can be art, or it cant, thats subjective, but porn is erotic mediums designed for stimulation of ones erotic sensuality...
|
|
Clump
X-Treme Gulp
Stop Buggering Me
Posts: 437
|
Post by Clump on Nov 23, 2003 12:47:02 GMT -5
If porn was art then it wouldn't be porn. You go to Rome and see naked statues, but it isn't porn. That's art ... I suppose. Porn is definately not art. The intent of porn is totally different.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamenco on Nov 23, 2003 14:37:20 GMT -5
you're right. man of the hour....
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSilentDemon on Nov 23, 2003 22:00:13 GMT -5
thanks liek thats basically what i was trying to say
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 24, 2003 23:01:12 GMT -5
i think porn to art ration is in the eye of the beholder, if your a pervert, you can take some classy art as porn, and jerk off to it...although another person can take pictures from a playboy style magazine and classify it as art, if they dont take it as sexually stimulating...
there is not a fine line, there is a very large vauge line...that can change in different situations...
so im not saying all playboy is art, but some people can take some of it as art...and visaversa...
|
|
|
|
Post by JumpinJackFlash on Nov 25, 2003 10:15:28 GMT -5
i swear i love George Carlin's opinion on these kinds of things and i couldn't put it any better, "Feminists want to bad pornography on the grounds that it encourages violence against women. The Japanese consume far more violent and depraved pornography than we do, and yet there is almost no rape reported there. A woman is twenty times more in danger of being raped in the US that she is in Japan. Why? Because Japanese people are decent, civilized, and intellegent."
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 25, 2003 23:06:07 GMT -5
or maybe that explains the recent increase in asians in america?
|
|
