Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Sep 30, 2009.
I'll never understand "art" but I do understand publicity......................funny how so often the two seem to be inextricably linked!
So where would "Water Rats" stand now?
..in a cupboard under lock and key where no one could see...
... with the Sea Urchins...
and millions of family photographs.....
Funny thing is kids are still allowed to run around on beaches without clothes, and there are folks there taking pictures....
Indeed, and why not. My little lad loves splashing about at the waters edge in the buff.
Mind you this latest brouhaha in the making is nothing new; The Baltic last year, Mapplethorpe at the Hayward in the mid 90s, Tierney Gearon at the Saatchi, Nan Golding, etc. Is it deliberate attempt to garner publicity, or is it an attempt to stand up to the New Puritans...
First Option. The Second Option is only done to achieve the First Option, no-one ever does it just because it's correct anymore.
Breaking news: Pic removed, reports say. More on this tomorrow
Just struck me that I think I saw this pic in the Guggenheim. If it's the one I'm thinking of, I can't quite see how anybody would get that excited about it - in any sense.
At a parish level even looking at the history of Keyworth Meadow Nature reserve, a picture of young lads at a bathing spot in Fairbrook brook, exhibited in a photo exhibition caused problems. No problem for the photographer. They were the boys who got beaten by the local schoolmaster for skinny dipping. The date was towards the end of the 19th century.
More recently we, in a walking group, surprised a similar party of boys in the same brook at a better and deeper hole on Ruddington Moor. There was laughter from both parties but no photographs for fear of repercussions.
By outlawing the art, they're outlawing the act: it's what fundamentalists, fanatics and extremists do ....
In many Bohemian towns this summer, temperatures of c. 38 Celsius saw many parents bring their kids to cavort around town centre fountains in birthday suits - and they loved every minute of it ... some places are still untainted by political correctness. Of course, the police keep an eye open for undesirable characters and crack-down hard - drug dealers, money launderers, drunks, vagrants, bicycle thieves ......
You may be the only one on here that has seen it. I heard a description of it on the radio this morning and the reporter made it sound anything but a representation of innocent nakedness. His description was of a deliberately erotic and provocative depiction of a naked 10 year old - with oiled body, full make up and full frontal. Add to that the claim that the original was taken by her mother and that the one on show is a photo of a photo plus the claim that both the Mother and Subject of the photo have done their best to get it banned then I'm not surprised that the gallery is having second thoughts.
Sorry that all this is second hand but I doubt that I'm any worse than many others expressing an opinion.
you can see the top part of the image on the guardians website...
It's tacky, for sure, but...
and Google image search seems to have no qualms about dishing up the rest of the picture.
Found this article about the history of the photo:
Interesting that an american court has found the image not to be pornographic.
Also interesting that, as I said before, the radio yesterday was claiming that the photo was taken by her mother and there was absolutely no mention of any contract with anyone. Another example of sensationalism for its own sake?
Another example of judgements being made without all the available information, or relevant information being omitted to suit the required spin.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
Separate names with a comma.