Login |  Register




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090413 19:10 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090301 04:38
Posts: 268
Location: Cleveland, OH
I find issue with two things that have been said in the recent posts.

One is that walking around completely nude would indeed remove some of the thrill of nudity. I think it would become boring after awhile. Both of you make good points, but I'd tend to lean more towards Monkee's joking stance that I never would want to get to the point where I don't think it's a big deal to see some girl naked.

Two is that I don't think sex and nudity can ever be considered "artsy" or "tasteful". Sex is sex and nudity is nudity, which I say is a precursor to sexual thoughts. Sex and sexual thoughts are primal in nature, and I think it's foolish to try and bend these thoughts to fit art's inane requirements... and I despise art in the first place. Quite frankly, I think artists that work in the nude medium are just like the rest of us (that is, just wanting to see naked chicks) but merely cover their Roshi or Jiraiya-like desire with the thin veneer of "art" (just like Jiraiya does). I call bullshit. I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. There are no taking pictures just for the sake of "exposing the beauty of the female form" or whatever other grandiose shit artists come up with... they and their readers just want to see girls naked and they want to do it without having to carry around a Playboy or Hustler.

You have to remember that we're not creatures that can often get by without clothing. That's just how we are. Nudity is practically impossible in many regions of the nation due to climate and environmental factors. Nudity may also bring up hygenic issues in situations; I can tell you right now that I know I would not want to be naked and take a seat at a <insert bar/restaurant/other> after a somewhat overweight guy has removed his sweating asscheeks from it, nor would I expect it in reverse.

I would also say that we should remember that clothing lends itself toward the sexual process. I don't know about you guys, but for me, part of the excitement of sex is taking off the girl's clothing. Can't do that if we're all already naked.

I tend to take a middle-ground stance here. I really don't see a problem with showing some tits on TV, or showing a cartoon ass. I think that's ridiculous to go into overdrive censored mode. To make such a big stink when Janet Jackson's boob popped out during that Super Bowl halftime show is absurd to the nth degree. Really, people need to calm down. However, I really don't see the need to try and push nudism. That's just the other extreme. I suppose I would say it this way: If people saw a modestly attractive girl walking down the street completely naked today, a lot of guys would probably go into salivate mode. Monkee and I would probably be part of that group. It might be an assumption, but as much as you (Zharth) would want to call us barbarians for getting hot and bothered over it, I would say 1) You're full of shit because you are thinking the same thing and 2) What is even wrong with it? Getting hot and bothered is just your sexual drive kicking in and that sexual drive is both healthy and necessary for survival. If a mochajavachinolatte sipping, beret wearing, mac-using douchebag told us oglers to stop staring and stop getting riled up, to view it as "artistic", we'd probably backhand him in the face and tell him to quit being a prissy faggot.

_________________
Bro locks got shoots. U can shoots bro. Drop ya rofl.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090413 22:02 
Legendary Overfiend
Legendary Overfiend
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:19
Posts: 527
Location: Terminal Dogma
Excuse me while I go have a heart attack. I'll be with you shortly.

_________________
I see what you did there.
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090413 22:43 
Legendary Overfiend
Legendary Overfiend
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:19
Posts: 527
Location: Terminal Dogma
Kashi wrote:
I don't think sex and nudity can ever be considered "artsy" or "tasteful".

Kashi wrote:
Sex and sexual thoughts are primal in nature, and I think it's foolish to try and bend these thoughts to fit art's inane requirements

Kashi wrote:
... and I despise art in the first place.

Kashi wrote:
There are no taking pictures just for the sake of "exposing the beauty of the female form" or whatever other grandiose shit artists come up with...

Kashi wrote:
they and their readers just want to see girls naked and they want to do it without having to carry around a Playboy or Hustler.

Remind me again how we ever became 'friends'?

_________________
I see what you did there.
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090413 23:10 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:31
Posts: 306
Location: Japan
zharth wrote:
Remind me again how we ever became 'friends'?


That was kind of uncalled-for. You should know better than anyone that you don't need to have matching views for a friendship.


I think that you can be nude AND get used to it without losing the "thrill" of seeing a pretty girl naked in an intimate situation. I mean, I can go out and eat whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want, but that doesn't remove the thrill of sitting down for a well-prepared meal... nor does it render that taste any less delicious.

As far as art go, I do think that there is art to be found in the human body. Sure, the Pieta is amazing and clothed, but so is David -- which is completely nude, complete with the hair Mike dislikes so much. Is David just some naked guy standing around for people to masturbate to after they go home? I certainly don't think so.

If you say it's different because he's a guy, well, then, that changes everything! Now we have a double-standard where women are sexual obj-- oh, wait, this is America.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090414 02:15 
Legendary Overfiend
Legendary Overfiend
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:19
Posts: 527
Location: Terminal Dogma
Scott wrote:
That was kind of uncalled-for. You should know better than anyone that you don't need to have matching views for a friendship.

Fair enough, but I felt queasy and enraged after reading his post, and...well let's just say it's a good thing this is an internet forum and not a face to face discussion.

_________________
I see what you did there.
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090414 11:09 
Legendary Overfiend
Legendary Overfiend
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:19
Posts: 527
Location: Terminal Dogma
Pic related. :lol:

Image

_________________
I see what you did there.
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090414 15:24 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090301 04:38
Posts: 268
Location: Cleveland, OH
zharth wrote:
Remind me again how we ever became 'friends'?

You're actually mad? And don't act surprised. In the past I made it no secret that I dislike most art. You make it seem like this is some kind of revelation.

Scott wrote:
I mean, I can go out and eat whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want, but that doesn't remove the thrill of sitting down for a well-prepared meal... nor does it render that taste any less delicious.
You can stop eating food. You can't stop seeing things with your eyes. The analogy is close but doesn't really hit the nail on the head. Something more accurate would be if you were force fed a particularly delicious dish 3 times a day. It would be amazing at first and then you'd get sick of it. I once had Subway BMTs with Chipotle sauce 17 days in a row. I got tired of it.

Scott wrote:
Is David just some naked guy standing around for people to masturbate to after they go home?
We can't say for certain that some girl somewhere hasn't rubbed one out to that and we can't say for certain that women don't get turned on by nude male art, pictures, or modeling. Monkee hinted that his sexual preferences were (even if ever so slightly) influenced by Classical and Medieval art. I think it's incorrect to automatically assume this can't work for women.

zharth wrote:
Fair enough, but I felt queasy and enraged after reading his post, and...well let's just say it's a good thing this is an internet forum and not a face to face discussion.

I assure you, even if it was a face to face discussion, nothing would have been done. No need to act like a hardass.

zharth wrote:
Pic related. :lol:

Congratulations on your shipment of butthurt. Funny how anyone who's an artist or likes art always falls back on the same argument: "You have no taste". Apparently not a taste for bullshit. Is that supposed to sting? It doesn't have more of an impact just because it's said in a Naruto manga.

_________________
Bro locks got shoots. U can shoots bro. Drop ya rofl.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090414 21:38 
Legendary Overfiend
Legendary Overfiend
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:19
Posts: 527
Location: Terminal Dogma
Kashi wrote:
You're actually mad? And don't act surprised. In the past I made it no secret that I dislike most art. You make it seem like this is some kind of revelation.

Forgive me if I have made an effort (conscious or otherwise) to forget all of the things about you I don't like. I know you always joked about the liberal arts majors, but to go so far as saying that you despise art itself? To my mind, that's just unthinkable... But again, sorry if I somehow momentarily forgot what an uncultured lummox you are.

Kashi wrote:
I assure you, even if it was a face to face discussion, nothing would have been done. No need to act like a hardass.

Yes, something would have been done. I probably would have ended up getting beaten up, because I'm not much of a fighter, and I know you don't have much mercy.

Kashi wrote:
Congratulations on your shipment of butthurt.

I apologize for being a sensitive person. I don't recall you ever apologizing for being insensitive. :|

Kashi wrote:
Funny how anyone who's an artist or likes art always falls back on the same argument: "You have no taste". Apparently not a taste for bullshit.

The fact that you dismiss anything you don't understand, is bullshit.

Kashi wrote:
Is that supposed to sting? It doesn't have more of an impact just because it's said in a Naruto manga.

Congratulations on missing the point. And thank you for taking me for an idiot, which I am not. I happen to enjoy the subtle taste of irony, and the fact that I came across a manga panel perfectly relating to my feelings the day I had them was something I felt like sharing.

_________________
I see what you did there.
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090414 21:56 
Legendary Overfiend
Legendary Overfiend
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:19
Posts: 527
Location: Terminal Dogma
Kashi wrote:
There are no taking pictures just for the sake of "exposing the beauty of the female form" or whatever other grandiose shit artists come up with...

1. There are artists who take (and have taken) pictures of naked chicks (and guys) for purely non-sexual reasons. This is a fact. Whether it's geometry or personality or vulnerability or what have you, nudity is a very powerful symbol, that can represent all kinds of things beyond just sex. Furthermore, not every nude portrait that's ever been taken has been taken of an attractive member of the human race.

Just because the only thing you think of when you see a naked body is sex, doesn't mean that everyone else is so simple-minded.

Kashi wrote:
Quite frankly, I think artists that work in the nude medium are just like the rest of us (that is, just wanting to see naked chicks) but merely cover their desire with the thin veneer of "art". I call bullshit.

2. Most artists, by the nature of their work, are more honest and open about their desires and their motivations than the average lay person. There is undoubtedly an erotic context to most nude art, and artists do not deny this. They may be coy and defensive in interviews and whatnot (alternatively, they may also crack jokes about it), but if so, this is just to differentiate themselves from the many GWC's walking around pretending to be artists, who are just as you've described, with their only interest being tricking women into taking their clothes off for the camera. These people are *not* artists, they are predators and they are liars.

Even Jock Sturges, well known for his many portraits of nudists in their natural surroundings, has admitted that there's an erotic quality to his work - and he's had to defend himself against the FBI for allegations of peddling child pornography (which is very much untrue). *That* is honesty. However, that's not the focus of his work - not by a long shot. His portraits contain emotion, personality...humanity. They're so beautiful because his subjects are not just pieces of meat, but human beings. It's not about cheap thrills, it's something much fuller, and much more satisfying.

Kashi wrote:
they and their readers just want to see girls naked and they want to do it without having to carry around a Playboy or Hustler.

3. The debate over the difference between art and pornography is a long and ongoing one. However, there is no question that there *is* a difference. Nude art is not just "porn" that people are allowed to feel good about owning/looking at/using. Nude art possesses many qualities that are lacking in porn. Nude art is not just about showing a naked chick. The extra qualities vary from portrait to portrait and from photographer to photographer, but the main point is, there's more to it, more depth, more meaning - it's not *just* a naked chick. And that's what attracts me to that kind of art, it has all this beauty that is quite simply lacking in regular, boring, meaningless porn.

I have to say, you are grossly mistaken about the art community. Just because you don't share their standards or understand the subtleties of beauty they admire, doesn't mean that they're just lying shits who are just like you, but pretending to be better for the sake of their own egos. Seriously.

_________________
I see what you did there.
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: Censorship
PostPosted: 090414 22:27 
Interactive Blogger
Interactive Blogger
User avatar
Joined: 090226 11:31
Posts: 306
Location: Japan
Kashi wrote:
We can't say for certain that some girl somewhere hasn't rubbed one out to that and we can't say for certain that women don't get turned on by nude male art, pictures, or modeling. Monkee hinted that his sexual preferences were (even if ever so slightly) influenced by Classical and Medieval art. I think it's incorrect to automatically assume this can't work for women.


No, but you made a blanket statement before that that kind of "art" is just porn that people look at for their own sexual shits and giggles. Plenty of people, male and female, look at and admire David as a piece of art; the fact that some girls (and guys) may have looked at it and gone and masturbated doesn't change the fact that quite a few people admire it as art.


Profile  Offline
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Panel

Top You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
 cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Dizayn Ercan Koc