Date: 2/11/2004 11:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 48527
hm.. well.. ok first of all, IF its a building or museum out in the open, where u pass by and u see it I stristly disagree with nude paintings being hung there..and also even if it wasnt just naked characters are ok, because the greek and in the old times they used to draw naked characters, if you would take a look at art history there are a LOT of examples. But sometimes I think the artist should keep some (TOO OBSCENE) pics to himself, since there might be kids that enter the museum, but if the museum wasnt for kids, id say its ok to display those paintings  |
Date: 2/11/2004 11:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 46527
Seeing as we are all born naked I see no problem with it.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 11:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 59418
i dont have a problem with it, as long as the pictures arent too...obscene....yeh:)  |
Date: 2/11/2004 12:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
This is amusing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm "No longer will US Attorney General John Ashcroft appear in public with a semi-nude statue towering above him. The US Justice Department has spent $8,000 on curtains to hide the statue from the cameras. The female, art-deco "Spirit of Justice" statue, with one breast exposed, is located on the podium in the department's ornate Great Hall where news conferences are often held"  |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 12:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 48527
naaah, there's nothing about that statue, it's normal, I dont think it needs to be covered up, I mean real life women should cover their breast, but this is just a form of art! Michael Angelo has carved and made many nude statues of men and women and they are casually displayed in italy, only for the sake of keeping in mind that this is art |
Date: 2/11/2004 12:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 57232
I think as long it is not involved in sexual situations it should be OK. The body is truly a work of art. I'm not a fit person, but if I were I would definately look at my body beautiful in the mirror at the different grooves between muscle and skin, the curve here the hip there. But it's not for everyone. I would never pose nude for a drawing, but if I were fit I would like a picture of what I looked like then.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 12:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 53549
okay its geting reduculus... i mean its a body... everyone has one.. i dont know why people make such a big deal over nudity! people a long time ago would walk around naked or half naked and it was just normal everyday occurances...everyone is too paranoid about there body...  |
Date: 2/11/2004 1:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
it depends on how obscene the nudity. If it is bordering on pornography like much of the old Greek artwork I would say no but If it is just nudes then I say yes?  |
Date: 2/11/2004 1:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 36537
I think it is o.k. but they should have seperate parts of muesums, like one for all adults and one for children.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 1:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 11723
I blame the whole Janet Jackson thing again! J/K. Seriously though. This is actually an age old debate. Michalangelo's David has been brought up. Another painting that Michalangelo painted called "Judgement Day" was altered, and naked bodies had Togas put on them because people thought it obscene. So long as it is artistically represented I think it should be fine. There really is a fine line between artistic and pornographic, as much as some people would love to blur that line. There is a lot of beauty in the human body, but I think some people have a hard time seeing the body for art's sake. In ancient times Greco-Roman wrestling was done in the nude, because spectators wanted to be able to see, analyze, and admire every muscle being used. Today such an act would be considered "indecent".  |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 1:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 46527
Having read that news article it seems a little strange that a breast is being treated in the same way as the genitalia that are covered on the male statue. I can quite see that if she were displaying her genitalia then yes, the Attorney might be a little uncomfortable at standing right by such a statue, but a breast?? Come on, that's a little bit too prim and proper! |
Date: 2/11/2004 1:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 13283
If it is done in good taste , it should NOT be a problem . Each community is different though . I would not display it in a christian community . I mean is it really important to show the genitalia ? Showing the top is okay , the bottom isnt . I like the statues that put a fig leaf down there . Razzy aka  |
Date: 2/11/2004 4:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
Heck, who cares if they're artistic as long as they're good looking?  |
Date: 2/11/2004 6:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Nudity is a natural thing and when displayed shouldn't be such a big deal. Nudity is our natural skin, so to speak..not meaning to make a pun here. But seriously, why must people make such a big deal? Nudity has always been displayed in artwork since ancient times, many civilizations still live in the nude...it's nothing to be ashamed of and I see no problem in displaying that type of art.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
It's some artists' way of expressing themselves. Jackson Pollock expressed himself through splattering paint on canvases in various, interesting patterns; the ancient Japanese told their stories through handscrolls; and some woman gnawed on a 600 pound slab of chocolate and a 600 pound slab of lard for many months and then displayed that as art. And if people can't display their form of art all because it depicts a nude person is a form of censorship.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 7:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
awesome how the human body is considered disghusting, 1. its a freaking art exhibit be it a painting or statue 2. its just the human body, if youre ashamed of what you were given you obviously need to realise its just flesh  |
Date: 2/11/2004 8:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
There is nothing wrong with the nude body. It is when nude bodies are used for pornographic purposes. Having said that, in days gone by nude paintings were the pornography of the day and it is only through time that they have become classic works of art.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Good Lord *eye roll*. The human body is a thing of beauty. Nudes are not lewd, except in the mind of some tightened extremists. Even statues that show genitals, any child over the age of two has seen them in a bath tub for cryibg out loud! Some people SERIOUSLY need to get a grip.  |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I think Michalangelo's statue of "David" is beautiful! The nudity meant little, or nothing, compared to the entire work. Some people have worms for brains.....:) |
Date: 2/12/2004 8:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
Maybe musuems need to have a separate room for this kinda stuff. Like put up some colorful streamers that hang from the top of the doorway of the room. Make it darkly lit. Only allow men who have mullets and handle bar mustaches to enter it.  |
|
Date: 2/12/2004 8:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 48527
LOL @ wild bob, hehee! |
Date: 2/12/2004 8:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Well, if Marge SImpson doesn't have a problem with it, then neither do i.  |
Date: 2/12/2004 10:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 28989
I'm the director of an art gallery with some nude pieces in it, so I'm somewhat biased. Also, I think the body is a work of art, and nude art has always been displayed publicly throughout history, so I see no problem with it. For the most part it's not meant to be erotic. It's supposed to be either symbolic or just plain beautiful.  |
|
Date: 2/12/2004 11:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 48527
I totally agree with canoe! stole the words right out of me mind!;D |
Date: 2/12/2004 12:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 48809
Not as far as I'm concerned Dizzy me... I could live without it.  |
Date: 2/12/2004 2:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
hey, freedom of expression and all that...  |
Date: 2/12/2004 2:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 3395
We were born naked beings... to deny that fact is to deny that we are ashamed of what God has blessed us with. The body is beautiful and I know that many artists, in their paintings, respect that. It would be like draping a sheet over a white tiger... Why???  |
Date: 2/13/2004 1:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 39370
I see nothing wrong with it. It's just the human body.  |
Date: 2/15/2004 9:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 42945
I cant see anything wrong with her bare breast showing, after all, its human nature and pretty well most of us started our lives off the end one, and its not as if it is in a compromising position....I cant see anything wrong with it....hugs  |
|
Date: 2/16/2004 12:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
I don't see anything wrong with it either, and I think a lot of people over react to things like this. |
Date: 2/16/2004 4:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
So everybody just get naked and call it art. Somebody might want to see your artfull body. Geez.  |
Date: 2/26/2004 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 58030
i think there are a LOT worse things than a breast showing in a picture..... geez, think about the late night tv, i mean my HISTORY teacher has statues of naket people in his room, not that big a deal (in a 9th grade class room mind you) but no one thinks anything of it, we've almost all seen more...  |
