The use of child pornography to sell newspapers was defended this week when New York Times Magazine Editor Gerald Marzorati sent an email defending a photo used in the fashion insert "T", which shows a 17 year old model, topless, with her left breast partially showing.
Now in case you're not versed in New York Times values or the proper use of kiddie porn, this is why it's okay; it's kind of blurry, it was shot by a "legendary fashion photographer", she's got a $4000 coat around her waist, and the section makes about $5 million in advertising revenue which was responsible from moving NYT stock rating to a "buy".
Comments Policy
Brooke Shields would like a
December 26, 2007 - 15:28 ET by tracheostomyBrooke Shields would like a word or two.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
the water heats, the frog
December 26, 2007 - 15:28 ET by TruthMongerthe water heats, the frog adjusts:)
"the water heats, the frog adjusts"
December 26, 2007 - 16:05 ET by RJExactly, Truth. It's another example of the reprehensible "pushing the envelope" so loved by the left.
RJ, So loved by the left
December 26, 2007 - 16:59 ET by LeonRJ,
So loved by the left and artists throughout time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain a sizable portion of all the artwork ever created would be considered illegal today based on the age and positioning of the subjects involved.
How many girls have been painted in the nude under the age of 18 throughout history? Many many many many.
I guess we should burn all those paintings before the trend spreads. Damn Renaissance and their inappropriate subject matter.
The New York Times Gallery and Museum of Art?
December 26, 2007 - 17:02 ET by RJlol! Nice try, Leon. Good for a chuckle, anyway.
RJ...
December 26, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Clear thinkerI'm going to pray that Leon never pro-creates. We could be seeing questionable pics of his kids if he did.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
CT, Nice. Way to call
December 26, 2007 - 17:10 ET by LeonCT,
Nice. Way to call me a pedophile.
17 is not a kid.
There is no nudity in the photo.
Sorry. If it was illegal the NYT would be in trouble. But they aren't.
Don't take your guilt from your weekly Blue Lagoon viewing out on me.
What world do you live in...
December 26, 2007 - 17:13 ET by Clear thinkerLeon.... 17 is a kid! Nobody at 17 years of age is mature enough to make these decisions.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Ok, So we should always
December 26, 2007 - 17:19 ET by LeonOk,
So we should always make sure to charge every criminal under 18 as a child. Because I'm fairly certain we don't do that now.
CT, do you remember when you were 17? How were you not mature enough to make big decisions? Hell in 1968, if you were 17, you were a hair away from going to Vietnam.
Is there some sort of magical lesson you learn between 17 and 18 that is essential to becoming an adult? 100 years ago if you were 17 you'd be thinking about starting a family.
You're starting to sound like a bleeding heart liberal that wants to coddle all children. 17 is not a child.
Leon
December 26, 2007 - 17:31 ET by MrShyAre you really just trying to get everyone's goat here?
17 - not legal
18 - legal
17 - Can not do porn, can not show t*ts or any private parts (at least I THINK that's the law) etc., etc..
18 - CAN do all these things. They are now of "legal age".
Very simple, shoot models 18 OR OLDER. Plenty of 18, 20, 21 year olds can LOOK 17 or 16, if they're so hankering to have teenage-looking models shirtless in their ad campaigns.
Libs just don't want any limits or real laws. It's always relative and subjective with them.
So, in summation, Leon:
It's something called.... the law. You want to change the law? Make it 17? 16? 14? (wouldn't surprise me) then lobby to change the LAW, I guess. Until then, what are we arguing about?
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
MrShy, 1) Then why can
December 26, 2007 - 17:36 ET by LeonMrShy,
1) Then why can I see Brooke Shields naked weekly in the Blue Lagoon? Shouldn't that movie be illegal?
2) There is no nudity in the photo. It's extremely blurred side boob. You can't see any nipple, and as far as I can tell from the FCC, nipple is instrumental to something being classified as nudity.
1) Then why can I see
December 26, 2007 - 17:46 ET by MrShy1) Then why can I see Brooke Shields naked weekly in the Blue Lagoon? Shouldn't that movie be illegal?
Never seen Blue Lagoon, but if she was indeed "naked" -- meaning, private parts exposed -- then I guess I don't know all the particulars of the 18 year-old laws and what's legal or not legal in media, etc..
And you watch that movie and see a 13 yr-old naked Brooke Shields, um, every week?.... Leon?
2) There is no nudity in the photo. It's extremely blurred side
boob. You can't see any nipple, and as far as I can tell from the FCC, nipple is instrumental to something being classified as nudity.
Haven't seen the pic, so I am curious, but a shirt should simply stay on a 17 year-old. 18? Then take the shirt off all you want. Again, I just want to know what the law is, and for responsible people to abide by it. Is that asking too much?
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
MrShy, 1) I don't watch
December 26, 2007 - 17:53 ET by LeonMrShy,
1) I don't watch it, I simply see it on my guide. I've already seen it once when I was younger and it was boring as all get out. But yes Brooke Shields is quite naked for most of the movie.
Again, I don't hear everyone clamoring for that to be taken off the air.
2) Go to the NY Post. They have the pic. It's no big deal. They run it without any disclaimer about it being safe for work, so you know it's not that bad. If it was truly pornographic, they'd be required to warn readers before they view it, which they don't.
Mr. Spinks
December 26, 2007 - 18:22 ET by MrShyI see, so if it's "truly" pornographic, then you agree they should have a label:
WARNING: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE IS TRULY PORNOGRAPHIC
If it's, oh say, "quasi-" pornographic, then no need for, oh say:
WARNING: THIS IS SORT OF/QUASI/MAYBE/DEPENDING ON YOUR DEFINITION OF ART -PORNOGRAPHIC (SO, BY OUR DEFINITION, WE CAN SHOW YOU A BLURRY NIPPLE)
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
blue lagoon is not an
December 27, 2007 - 17:09 ET by TruthMongerblue lagoon is not an advertisement - it is a rated film
Age of consent
December 27, 2007 - 03:49 ET by easygoerIn many states a girl under the age of eighteen can legally have consensual sex. I know that in my state(NY) the age is seventeen. Just ask Joey Buttafucco, who after repeated denials, was nailed for the statutory rape of Amy Fisher when Nassau County detectives found a receipt from a seedy Freeport, LI motel dated a few days prior to her seventeenth birthday. We cannot come to a national consensus on the age of consent. And yet this photo/ad, however distasteful and unattractive, is somehow kiddie porn because it shows a blurry image of a half naked seventeen year old girl. This puts one in the ridiculous position of saying a girl under eighteen can consent to sex without her parents pemission(as many states do) but cannot pose in a provacative ad that will profit her. My own view is that any girl over sixteen can and should be allowed to make such decisions without her parents consent. As for the add itself,it's a repulsive throwback to the age of Twiggy.
Well stated easygoer. I
December 27, 2007 - 09:46 ET by LeonWell stated easygoer.
I agree with you 100%. 17 a child?
In my mind, at the very least, once you can drive a car and be directly responsible for the lives of others, you are no longer a child.
kentucky is 14 i
December 27, 2007 - 13:16 ET by TruthMongerkentucky is 14 i believe...
i agree with leon in that the "age of consent" is largely a load of crap - from a Biblical perspective anyway...
there ain't one in the Bible...
nothing wrong with creating a law tho - but it's just an arbitrary local culture number - not based on Biblical concepts IMHO...
it's a just civil management mechanism - works pretty good I think...
Biblically speaking, as long as your married you can have sex galore - regardless of age - the child protection lies not in the age but rather in what clergly member in their right mind would marry a pre-pube to someone else? In a God-fearing world there would be none...
suggestive depictions like this NYT ad do evoke sinful lust - not good...
Leon's automobiles
December 27, 2007 - 23:19 ET by easygoerRight on. I never considered the driving aspect of it all.
Leon...
December 26, 2007 - 21:11 ET by Clear thinkerI pray that you never have children!!!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
I could say much the same
December 26, 2007 - 22:15 ET by tracheostomyI could say much the same for myself and everyone else here.
I weep for the next generation.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
There is no nudity in the
December 26, 2007 - 17:25 ET by motherbeltThere is no nudity in the photo. Leon
Of course there is. She is naked from the waist up. You can see part of her left breast.
You accuse CT of calling you a pedophile. Does that mean that you would consider someone who allowed questionable photos to be take of his children as a pedophile? Then how can you defend this?
Oh, I forgot, they did it during the Renaissance, so it must be OK.
MB, No. He mentioned my
December 26, 2007 - 17:32 ET by LeonMB,
No. He mentioned my imaginary kids, he didn't specify their age or activity, I just jumped to the conclusion of what he was getting at.
Just because they did it in the Renaissance doesn't necessarily make it ok, I simply bring that up to ask, where do we draw the line? Where does this type of analysis end?
If 17 is too young to be in a racy photo shoot and you're saying it shouldn't be displayed, if we carry your logic out, wouldn't that mean we shouldn't display any racy images of 17 year olds? Including historical artwork?
if we carry your logic out,
December 26, 2007 - 17:44 ET by motherbeltif we carry your logic out, wouldn't that mean we shouldn't display any
racy images of 17 year olds? Including historical artwork?
Yes, I would go that far, but I have no authority. I certainly wouldn't buy or display in my home a "racy" image of a child, even if it were a Renaissance masterpiece.
And CT was saying you would probably allow your daughter to do this, because it's "legal." You inferred the "pedophile."
Well then MB, you and I
December 26, 2007 - 17:44 ET by LeonWell then MB,
you and I will have to agree to disagree. But I respect your adherence to your principles.
I think your stance is fine, but you have to carry it out to all forms of artwork. Since you do that, I can't argue with you.
How many did you card Leon....
December 26, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Airforce_5_OSo if they did it in 1600 it makes it ok now???? Man you are reaching today Brother Leon.
Airforce, 1) Didn't you
December 26, 2007 - 17:34 ET by LeonAirforce,
1) Didn't you say you were leaving because of the rampant Mormon hate on this site? You're back I see. Now, that's why I avoid making GRAND statements like that. You really have to be sure to back them up once you make them. Otherwise, the next time you make a GRAND statement, you'll sound like the boy who cried wolf.
2) Because they did it in 1600 doesn't make it ok and that's not why I brought it up. My point was simple. If you don't think this picture is apporpriate for display than you must think all images containing people under 18 aren't appropriate for display which means Art Museums around the world should be hiding a hefty number of paintings.
Leon, there is nudity, and
December 26, 2007 - 17:49 ET by motherbeltLeon, there is nudity, and there is suggestive nudity. I don't know which paintings etc. you are referring to. But if is natural nudity, that's one thing. If it is the suggestive kind of nudity and involves kids under 18, I wouldn't have a problem with telling museums to put them away. But then again, I admit I'm kind of a dinosaur, and don't go along with things just because someone tells me it's "great art."
And I'm done here. I think you're right, we have to agree to disagree. No minds are going to be changed.
Just as silly as the first time, Leon
December 26, 2007 - 17:49 ET by RJAttempting to compare newspaper advertising to classic art is just as funny as it was the first time.
....and you were saying you avoid GRAND statements? :^)
RJ, It's artistic
December 26, 2007 - 17:50 ET by LeonRJ,
It's artistic photography. Art is art. Sorry girlfriend.
Or are you arguing that all fashion photography should not be considered art (esp. considering that much of it is for the explicit intention of advertising)?
Wouldn't you know it? Here we are, talking about nudity
December 26, 2007 - 17:54 ET by RJ...and creepy Leon's back in the bathroom stall with his laptop, fantasizing again about turning males into housewifes....
Yuk, leon....
Leon, most of these guys seem to...
December 26, 2007 - 18:00 ET by SyriusLeon,
It seems most of these guys have a 'wide stance' on
moral issues. Oh holey moley, wrap that drape around the nude bits.
Where's that fig leaf? Oh the insanity of the moralists! Go
ahead, tell me what to do next as I get into lockstep...
S
Syrius, That's
December 26, 2007 - 18:03 ET by LeonSyrius,
That's hilarious!
Spot on. It would be nice to constantly have someone telling you what to do. Making decisions for yourself can be so tiring.
That explains a lot
December 27, 2007 - 00:50 ET by UnsaneSpot on. It would be nice to constantly have someone telling you what to do. Making decisions for yourself can be so tiring. That could explain why you and your friend Syrius so badly want to be coddled and nannied by the government...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Syrius
December 26, 2007 - 18:05 ET by RJleon is being laughed at for his silly attempt to equate advertising with classic art. Are you gonna defend him? ;^)
"They are the new greatest generation." -Gen. David Petraeus
RJ, You could easily
December 26, 2007 - 18:07 ET by LeonRJ,
You could easily argue that in today's consumer driven society, advertising is not just an art form, but the dominant art form.
It's entirely appropriate to compare a fashion photograph with classic art. They're simply different expressions from different time periods, but they're both art.
hahahaha!
December 26, 2007 - 18:14 ET by RJ"appropriate to compare a fashion photograph with classic art."
....always knew you had no taste, leon....
Pile on, lockstepper...
December 26, 2007 - 18:12 ET by SyriusHe doesn't need any defending from a bunch of guys who think 'Dogs playing poker' is classic art.
When's the last time any of you 'real men' walked into an Art Gallery
Advertising is an art form and is displayed in several different mediums.
Get real, boys...
S
and you base that knowledge on what syrius?
December 26, 2007 - 18:18 ET by RJYou two sound like self-absorbed middle-schoolers, giddy over your new-found "intellectualism." :^)
As for "piling on" and "lockstepping" try to keep perspective. You responded to my post....in lockstep with leon.
Syrius, you claim the men
December 26, 2007 - 18:33 ET by motherbeltSyrius, you claim the men here don't visit art galleries; Leon claims that none of us complain about 17-year-old girls wearing skimpy dresses in fashion shows.
Neither of you knows what you are talking about. Throwing out wild accusations is not a rebuttal.
MB, Could you point me to
December 27, 2007 - 09:47 ET by LeonMB,
Could you point me to the NB post during this fall's fashion week where the attire of sub-18 year old girls was analyzed and the show's promoters, slandered?
You Can't Be Syrius
December 26, 2007 - 18:34 ET by MrShyLockstep Schmockstep
Lockstep? You're calling this lockstep?? You want lockstep? come to NYC. Lockstep liberal zombies by the truck loads around here... just put one foot outside and the stuff THEY spew is truly and frighteningly...... lockstep.
This is about an underage girl going partly-naked on a PUBLIC advertisement -- NOT in a museum, btw, guys/gals. (Sorry Syrius, don't know your gender... and we think Leon's a guy :p)
And the real debate -- for me at least here -- is the legality/law of it, and the NYT's wanting to fudge things (not just nipples)
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
For the snobby Syrius
December 27, 2007 - 00:54 ET by UnsaneWhen's the last time any of you 'real men' walked into an Art Gallery Um, repeatedly. Visual arts aren't my thing though; I am more into music. So, what are you trying to say? You are somehow better than us because you visit art galleries?
What a pathetic display of sheer Leftist snobbery...
By the way, if you truly understood art, you would know it is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think advertising is necessarily art. Dali wasn't making an ad for a clockmaker or watchmaker when he painted "Persistence of Memory"...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For the snobby Syrius
December 27, 2007 - 00:55 ET by UnsaneWhen's the last time any of you 'real men' walked into an Art Gallery Um, repeatedly. Visual arts aren't my thing though; I am more into music. So, what are you trying to say? You are somehow better than us because you visit art galleries?
What a pathetic display of sheer Leftist snobbery...
By the way, if you truly understood art, you would know it is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think advertising is necessarily art. Dali wasn't making an ad for a clockmaker or watchmaker when he painted "Persistence of Memory"...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane, In one sentence
December 27, 2007 - 09:52 ET by LeonUnsane,
In one sentence you say art is in the eye of the beholder and then in the next breath you comment on whether or not advertising can be considered art.
I don't get it.
Advertising in 2007 can most certainly be called art. Esp. if you consider that art traditionally reflects many of the feelings of the time at which it's created. What describes our contemporary world better than advertising? Nothing.
Um, is this hard to grasp?
December 27, 2007 - 15:09 ET by UnsaneI, Unsane, personally do not know if advertising can be considered art.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, and Unsane gave you his opinion of what is art to HIM (or what isn't). Get it?
What describes our contemporary world better than advertising? Nothing. Obviously you aren't familiar with cameras, of both the video and still varieties. Paintings are still carried out as a form of expression. And there is music.
As you know I am far from an anti-capitalist, but Neil Peart was onto something when he said "art as expression, not as market campaigns, will still capture our imaginations" in "Natural Science III - Permanent Waves".
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
What's the difference
December 26, 2007 - 18:36 ET by balboaWhat's the difference between one of those paintings and this photograph?
Gee, I don't know balboa
December 26, 2007 - 18:44 ET by RJWhat's the difference between the scenic photos from my last vacation and one of those paintings?
I'd imagine what the average
December 26, 2007 - 18:47 ET by balboaI'd imagine what the average person would pay for one versus the other.
Monetary value determines quality of "art"?
December 26, 2007 - 19:03 ET by RJBut an artist's work often increases in value when he dies. According to your concept, it becomes better art at that point. (sarc)
Seriously, what leon, syrius (and you?) are saying is that anything you want to call "art" is "art."
RJ
December 26, 2007 - 19:16 ET by botgit does if I'm selling, which it seems these three are trying to do but nobody's buying
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
Mapplethorpe comes to mind...
December 26, 2007 - 19:20 ET by SyriusRJ,
Mapplethorpe and all his glory. Any news on the next Mapplethorpe exhibit?
Be afraid, be very afraid...
S
Syrius, if you're determined to prove....
December 26, 2007 - 19:28 ET by RJthat you're an immature fool....relax....you've accomplished that beautifully.
RJ...
December 26, 2007 - 19:49 ET by SyriusRJ,
Currently, I've found most locksteppers like yourself try
to (poorly) attack the intelligence and maturity of anyone who
disagrees with your views. It's not working...
What is ART,
RJ?
What is the definition of ART based upon your narrow focus?
When is ART not ART to you?
Why should I listen to you?
Anyone want to help your buddy? He's flailing like a dummy flying off a building...free dummy.
S
As I said before, Syrius, try to keep your perspective
December 26, 2007 - 20:02 ET by RJYou were the one who "piled on" in "lockstep" with your buddy, leon.
You have yet to contribute anything intelligent to the conversation. Your sophomoric questions and your smarmy allusions to Mapplethorp don't provide cover for the vacuous wasteland of your posts.
Still waiting...
December 26, 2007 - 20:28 ET by SyriusRJ,
Just wanted to see some Mapplethorpe on the internets
while waiting for your post. I feel flush. You should expand those
wings of yours & free your mind of young female models & allow
the images of Art back into your head.
Answer my questions...
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? RJ?
S
Since it's YOUR sophomoric conceit, Syrius
December 26, 2007 - 20:34 ET by RJIt should be easy to tell me why the NYT advt and Mapplethorp ARE art and why they are comparable to the classics.
Quick now....no looking it up on the internet. tick, tick....
More like tsk, tsk, tsk...
December 26, 2007 - 21:05 ET by SyriusRJ,
Like Leon, I have a business to run...back to your posting...
I'm waiting for an answer to my questions...
Answering a question with a question is not an answer.
You've lost this debate with your shallow depth of knowledge.
Define 'Classics' from your expansive mind?
Could
you define the differences between Northern European Renaissance,
Italian Renaissance, and possibly, Romanesque Art in your answer? I'm
signing off for now so you can use the internets to figure out what I
just asked... until tomorrow...
Ta-ta,
S
Can't answer, huh, Syrius?
December 26, 2007 - 21:12 ET by RJAs I said, it's YOUR sophomoric conceit. Don't want to even give it a try?
Here, I'll even give you a little help. The issue on this thread isn't your dumb question "what is art", it's why are this advt and Mapplethorpe comparable to classic art? Come, on Syrius...you're the one with the big mouth. Prove yourself.
syrius says: "you've lost this debate" LOL!
December 27, 2007 - 03:10 ET by mastersofdeceitThis from the person whose first 2 posts were:
1.
"Leon, It seems most of these guys have a 'wide stance' on
moral issues. Oh holey moley, wrap that drape around the nude bits.
Where's that fig leaf? Oh the insanity of the moralists! Go
ahead, tell me what to do next as I get into lockstep..."
2.
Pile on, lockstepper
" He doesn't need any defending from a bunch of guys who think 'Dogs playing poker' is classic art.
When's the last time any of you 'real men' walked into an Art Gallery
Advertising is an art form and is displayed in several different mediums.
Get real, boys..."
Gee something tells me you're not here for serious "debate" Looks more like you wanted to give leon a "reach around".
Can anyone say Stern Fan Network retards?
Clear up a couple things.
December 26, 2007 - 21:09 ET by DarasenOk just to clear up a couple of things.
Brooke Shields never appeared nude in "The Blue Lagoon" A body double was used. Link
That is not to say she was not in "Pretty Baby" or the girl who played the younger Brooke character wasn't nude. Nudity involving subjects under the age of 18 is not illegal. 17 ias not a child per-se. Many psychologist would argue that at 26 a female is mentally and emotionally mature enough to make her own sexual decisions. (I would disagree)
You can argue untill you are blue in the face but, no one will be able to determine what is and is not art. At Conceptart.org, a proffesional artist website there is no agreement either.
I mention these things because as conservatives we need to stick to the facts. Emotionly uninformed opinions are typically the pervue of the left wing. Are the images tasteless? I think that is a personal call. Personally I think the images are more sassy than sexy. Less is seen of this young lady than is shown by far younger girls on beaches through out the US regularly. As a former art student myself I have loser views of nudity. Aside from that I wear my 'neo-con' badge with pride.
Thanks, I agree...
December 26, 2007 - 21:15 ET by SyriusDarasen,
Thank you for the eloquent answer.
RJ, it looks like someone helped you in your time of need...
S
Except, doofus Syrius
December 26, 2007 - 21:34 ET by RJYOU were the one who kept asking "what is art", while I was the one who laughed at your dumb and irrelevant to the thread question. ;^>
I've been saying the same thing, Darasen
December 26, 2007 - 21:17 ET by RJThe question "what is art" is being asked by a couple of liberals. The question started way back up the thread is this: since they insist on both calling the advt "art" and comparing it to classic art, just how is it comparable to classic art?
Darasen, Just a
December 27, 2007 - 17:15 ET by LeonDarasen,
Just a correction.
The body double in Blue Lagoon was only used for the full frontal nudity scenes.
However, a 14 year old Brooke Shields performed all her own topless scenes.
So in Blue Lagoon you will see a topless 14 year old. Where is the uproar?
Leon
December 28, 2007 - 00:09 ET by shawn228I believe in all those scenes her long hair was covering her breasts.
Shawn, Simply
December 28, 2007 - 10:04 ET by LeonShawn,
Simply untrue.
Feel free to view the movie again at you leisure.
I guarantee if you have digital cable you can find it on at least once in the next week.
Leon
December 28, 2007 - 11:27 ET by shawn228Good morning Leon,
It is something I am 100 percent sure about. I am pretty sure that they would not have Brooke Shields show her actual breast in the movie considering that she was only 14 at the time of the filming
Yes they did use her in several topless scenes, but like I said her long hair was always covering her breasts. In the movie return to the blue lagoon, there was a few brief nudity scences with Mila Jojovich, Here is a cut and paste from wikapedia.I guarantee I am right, if you can find an actual nude pic of Brooke in the Blue Lagoon on the net that shows more than cleavage pm it to me and I will admit I am wrong.
"Unlike her earlier Pretty Baby,
this film featured no actual nude scenes for the young Shields, who was
only 14 when the film was made. A body double was used for all of her nude scenes, although Shields was featured in several topless scenes. "
No, I'm agreeing that this
December 26, 2007 - 19:27 ET by balboaNo, I'm agreeing that this photograph can be evaluated on the same terms as the nude classic paintings.
balboa, that's as clear as mud
December 26, 2007 - 19:38 ET by RJAre you saying the photograph and the classic paintings are equal except for monetary value? Or, are you saying they're not equal but the same evaluation criteria should be used in judging their quality within their respective spheres?
I'm saying they both can be
December 26, 2007 - 20:02 ET by balboaI'm saying they both can be considered as art.
You didn't answer my questions, balboa
December 26, 2007 - 20:05 ET by RJPlease go back, read, and respond to my questions. Thanks.
Are you saying the
December 26, 2007 - 20:10 ET by balboaAre you saying the photograph and the classic paintings are equal except for monetary value?
In some ways, yes, they are equal, in that they're an artistic interpretation of a female.
Or, are you saying they're not equal but the same evaluation criteria should be used in judging their quality within their respective spheres?
They are different, sure, in certain ways, but they are both art and can both be judged as such.
"in some ways"...."in certain ways"
December 26, 2007 - 20:28 ET by RJThanks (seriously) for trying, balboa, but that's still vague. As I said before, you guys are trying to put all "art" on the same level, and that's simplistic.
But regarding the issue at hand, I've also read that some pornographers call their product "art." Anything can be called art.
Going back to my original statement, the NYT advt is no more than another example of the reprehensible practice of "pushing the (social) envelope."
How do _you_ determine what
December 26, 2007 - 20:43 ET by balboaHow do _you_ determine what is art?
And why do you think this photo pushes the envelope? Because the model is 17?
"what is art" is irrelevant to this issue
December 26, 2007 - 20:54 ET by RJAs I said, anything can be labeled "art."
The NYT photo pushes the social envelope because it's presented in a social context, not an artworld context. It's in the same vein as that uproar-causing Ambercrombie catalog of nude youths a few years back.
Yeah, RJ
December 26, 2007 - 18:03 ET by BlondeHe's got that wide stance thing going on again, too.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Ugh, Blonde
December 26, 2007 - 18:10 ET by RJcreepy is the right word...
Why the ripple over no nipple?
December 26, 2007 - 21:47 ET by shawn228Leon, that is not very nice what you said about AF. He admitted he lost his temper and most people at NB accepted him back no questions asked.
Also as another poster said, Brooke Shields has never been naked on film except for her controversial pics in "Pretty Baby" when she was I think 12 or 13.
I believe the law should be followed and 18 yrs old when you should be able to show actual nudity, I have not seen the pictures, but from what I understand there was no nipple shown. How many times have we seen a half naked Britney Spears or Christina Aguilara before they were 18? Why make such a big deal out of a picture that is sexy but has no nudity?
Leon you ignorant Lib
December 26, 2007 - 22:24 ET by Airforce_5_O1. I came back under the request of friends on this site. I was pissed off, apologized for being a child about it. Thanks for your concern. How about a big old cup of shut the hell up and try and make some sense from now on.
Are you not the one making bigger then life statements about being one of the Prolific Posters on this site?
You are a legend in your own mind and don't have a clue. You want to personaly attack me and get into it brother? Bring it on cause I have not yet began to get in your grill on you liberal crap.If you start allowing a girl 17 to pose with her breast hanging out now what is to stop a 15 or 16 year old from doing it next? How about 13 Leon? Do we get to call that art? Would you be satisfied with a couple of 10 year old boys thrown in there for good too?
That is the problem with you liberals. You say "Oh I am so sensitive to the needs of others." "Peoples feelings mean so much." Yet it is okay for someone to put up a degrading image and go "Oh look art!"
You attack religion without thinking about "Feelings". You attack fat people without "Feelings". Yet some magazine allows a 17 year old girl expose herself and go "It is art!" and you have no outraged???? You are freaking walking contradiction.
You don't have daughters so you have NO CLUE ABOUT helping them make a right choice in their growing up. You have no clue about the struggles to them focused on school and their future. Most of all you don't have a clue what is like to keep pampas ass like you out of their lives.
Maybe when you finally grow up and start thinking with the head on your shoulders and have kids you will understand how much damage people like you are doing to morality in general.
You may tempt fate once my friend and get away with it but after that she is a real bitch Leon.
AF
December 27, 2007 - 00:32 ET by shawn228I have to disagree with you on this one AF. If there was actually nudity I can understand your outrage. There was no nipple and not even a hint of a areola. I don't see the issue with a little bit of cleavage.
That's your criteria, shawn?
December 27, 2007 - 00:42 ET by RJUnder-age girls (or any woman) can show everything except the nipple and areola? For you, that's when it crosses over from soft porn to hard?
The reason I don't like it, as I've been saying, is that it's a deliberate pushing of the (social) envelope in a newspaper read by all ages.
The camel's nose is under the edge of the tent. Soon....
rj
December 27, 2007 - 01:02 ET by shawn228"For you, that's when it crosses over from soft porn to hard?"
I don't even consider Playboy hard porn RJ. Check out Britney Spears first Rolling Stones cover It is about half way down.
All she is wearing is Bra and Panties. I believe she was only 17 at the time of the shoot. I find nothing wrong with this cover. I guess you are just a bit more old fashioned than I am.
I am not going to exaggerate and say these pictures are art, at the same time this is not even close to kiddie porn. I just don't see the big deal about a provocative pose. It is making a mountain over a molehill.
Perhaps it's not that he is old-fashioned...
December 27, 2007 - 01:07 ET by Unsane...or maybe you just have a thing for Britney Spears (overrated, IMHO)...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane
December 27, 2007 - 01:16 ET by shawn228Maybe in her prime unsane, but definitely not what she has turned into.
More of a Obama girl fan of late.