Marijuana.com

1tokeovertheline

That's good....
I don't know her. I she isn't at least for the example given.
I don't know but at least not for the example given.

OK....

Not really. I have listened to their music but don't like them enough to buy their music. Actually I wouldn't even download their music for free off the internet.

I could care less...

I just answered dedbr's post telling him where Adam and Eve got clothed according to the Bible. Then I gave my opinion on the "topic" of the thread to stay "on topic".
You and everbody else can have your opinion regardless if it agrees with mine or not. I don't care what your opinion on the topic is. You are entitled to your opinion. Please don't try to deprive me of mine either. I understand that lots of people don't have the same opinions that I do.
I must admit and think that I have on this forum someplace. It would be nice if everyone agreed with me. I've tried for 54 yrs. to get them too. It don't work but it sure would be nice.
Have a good day,
1Toke

PS
If you are trying to "get my goat". You will have to visit Buzzby, Sterbo, Broli, imskfan, or TUT. The last I knew, one of them had her. You will know her if you see her. She is the prettiest goat you have ever laid...................eyes on and they pass her around like a common slut.

 

shibshib

I'm sorry... but I'm confused as to why bringing in relevant information from other cultures is somehow "irrelevant" when we are discussing one cultures question of "Is this Art or Pornography".

It's fairly easy to win an argument when you deem other thoughts as irrelevant.

But to each their own, I suppose.


As for you not believing it is art... yet you do admit you believe the person thought it was when he took the pictures... If you are willing to believe that the person sees it as art, why does your opinion matter? If you admit the person was not doing it as pornography, then what wrong has he committed?

So because you view it as wrong, it is wrong... despite the person having all the best intentions?

That, in itself, is why bringing up other cultures is very relevant, because it is your upbringing that has made you believe the way you do, and it is the photographer's which made him create his definition of art.

Sec

I do believe I stated, as was asked in the original post, what my opinion was. I do view it as wrong. He has committed the "wrong" of exploiting a child for his own gain. It was the INTENTION of the photographer to make money off of the exhibition. No one exhibits art with the INTENTION of going bankrupt.

As 1toke said, I have my opinion, he has his opinion and you have yours. We are equally free to state our opinions. If you don't like mine, I can't help that. You keep trying to bring into the discussion that certain cultures in Africa encourage sexual acts between children and you even mentioned a child taking a photograph of him/herself fpr personal reasons.

None of that is relavent to a grown man photographing a child for his own personal and professional gain. It is also very different from taking family photos of babies and toddlers in the bath. Those weren't published and displayed for the world to see for the financial gain of the parents now, were they.

These photographs were placed in an art gallery for anyone and everyone to view. If the exhibition is successful, the photographer then sells the photos for monetary gain. This IMO, (which means IN MY OPINION), is exploitation of a child, which as I stated before and will state again, is what the photographer did that was WRONG.

IF you don't share the same opinion, so be it. Just because I feel it doesn't qualify as pornography or art, doesn't make it right. The photos don't have to qualify as either art or pornography. I have thousands of photographs that neither qualify as art or porn. They are photographs, that is it. What he did with those photographs is what was wrong. He also IMO, should not be photographing an underage child nude.

You never say why you feel that exploitation of a child is ok. If the photographer used a young looking 18 year old and achieved the same effect, why do you feel he did not need to do that?

EDIT: If he weren't intending on making money off the nude body of a child, then why take the photos in the first place? Why not take photographs of a clothed child, display the photos, then give them to the family? It is because the photo of a nude child is much more marketable. He was banking on the shock value of a nude child to raise the value and interest of the exhibit.

That poor kid had no basis for giving permission. She could not possibly see or even imagine what ramifications taking nude photographs will hold for her in the future. She alone must deal with any problems created 20, 30, or even 50 years down the road. None of the others who decided to take these pictures will have to deal with the future as she will.

__________________
Guidelines.
Search
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

SocataSmoker

Seems people forget, a few hundred years ago I'd have banged my 13 year old wife and would be expecting a child as my 14th birthday present, and that was normal... O Romeo...

1tokeovertheline

And......a few hundred years ago it would have been legal. Seems you forget that now it isn't.

Your statement is as irrelevant as the African sex rituals, etc.

 

shibshib

So by your standards... law is the decider of morality?

I'd rather not have my government choosing my morals.

edit: This thread should be moved into philosophy I think =P

SocataSmoker

Precisely shibshib...

1tokeovertheline

Unfortunate, especially if you live in the good ol' US of A.
I'd rather not have the gov't tell me to wear a helmet on my Harley or wear a seatbelt in my truck.

I personally don't care what you do or what you believe. The thread is "Art or Pornography". African sexual rituals and blah, blah, blah, have nothing to do with the original topic.
Some say art, and some say porn. I agree it's porn and wrong. Big deal. It's my opinion, I am entitled to one, you don't have to agree with mine and I don't have to agree with yours.

I don't agree it's art and I won't changed my opinion. So..........I guess it's the end of the story for me. "Neg rep" and "No Thanks" until they are coming out of my ass won't change my opinion on the subject. Anything any further will just lead to an arguement and most know where that usually leaves me.
Later,
1Toke

dedbr

One of my moms favorite sayings was "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I think that goes for art and pornography, too. Some say it is art and get on with it. Some see it as porno and get rid of it. We even have another idea about it being exploitive of the child/young girl/woman/whatever.

It is not sexual to me. I am not into young girls, but when I was young I sure was. I've seen a lot of things that were supposed to be art that offended me worse than these pictures of this girl. A lot of art is garbage. It's kinda like T.V. If ya don't like it, turn the channel.........


Some Where In Ded Land....................

__________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us" .......... Pogo (for Prez...)

Remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

zakstaxicab

Sally Mann caught crap over it too, and she was the children's mother. My university still teaches that she was a great photographer. One of our art instructors has a print of Jessie at 5 in her office. Whether photographs of nude children is considered "art" or not is subjective, and always will be. However, there are certain legal guidelines in each country that must be followed, irregardless of if the artist feels censored or not. Some photos of nude children don't qualify as obscenity, some do.

It's the artists' responsibility to keep him/herself out of trouble. Before snaping shots of a bunch of naked kids, an artist should take the time to learn the laws in his/her country of residence, the country where the photos are being taken, and the country where the children are from. The same applies to an exported or imported piece. I'm sure Sally Mann's work is considered illegal in an Islamic state.

To get to my damn point without interjecting my own feelings on the photos, if a photographer's work falls under his/her nation's laws as "obscene," he should know that he's going to be prosecuted. If he wants a shot in a certain pose, but he's not sure whether or not it's obscene, he shold either err on the side of caution or contact someone who knows the law better than himself.