Sex Education in the Museum Of Modern Art?

1. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

   What do you see happening here? Do you think it's appropriate or not?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Shadesbreathposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I see people sitting before a painting, some adults, some children.  Anything else that might be said would require total speculation on my part, which would then open the door for me to begin preaching whatever my political/social/religious opinion is based on nothing as I totally depart from what is actually visible and verifiable about that photograph.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I see porn being passed off as art.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         gaah!
         
         this is Henri Matisse's "The Dance". it is so stylized that these dancers go from simply nude bodies to symbols of freedom and emotional expression. there is absolutely nothing pornographic about this. i exposed my son to all kinds of extraordinary works of art from a very young age, and he wasn't harmed in any way.

         replyreport
      2. 82

         Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         You would.

         replyreport
      3. 86

         kerrygposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         They're highly stylized naked people dancing in a circle. How is that porn?
         
         If nudity equals porn, then is Michelangelo's "David" porn? Or his "The Last Judgment?" How about the Venus de Milo? A pretty significant percentage of the world's greatest paintings and statues feature naked or near naked human bodies.

         replyreport
      4. 77

         Tadeusz598posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         If it were porn then surely the figures depicted would have genitals.
         
         Brenda Durnham's response shows either an ignorance of porn or a fiailure to really look at Matisse's picture.

         replyreport
      5. 66

         Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Some say "Porn is in the eye of the beholder."

         replyreport
      6. 44

         Patrick Oliverposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Dear Brenda. You consider Matisse's painting pornographic? Perhaps you are of the Victorian persuasion that considered piano legs should be clothed to prevent them from creating erotic stimulation.  One might argue that the dancers are inelegant, perhaps even a little clumsy, but never pornographic.  But come on, admit it: you are joking, are you not?  And congratulations, you have managed to stir up a lively reaction.  But a painting must say something and I do not think this painting says a lot. Even so, would you deny the artist the right to explore human emotion, even including the erotic nature we all posses?  Pornography is not art, it is bad taste, and only an artist can create something beautiful out of our primitive emotions.

         replyreport
   3. 54

      sooner than laterposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I have to say that this is the ugliest painting i have seen in a while.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, these modern painters are so bad. Bet your 3 year old could paint it

         replyreport
         1. 54

            sooner than laterposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            yeah i suppose if I had a three year old, it could happen. I don't think that the painting is overly exposing or would even arouse those children- I'm sure if a young boy wanted to see too much, MTV would do a lot better than that. But what an ugly POS. Thats lazy and its wasting some wall space for something really nice.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         Denno66posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Art, like opinions, are personal.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I see further evidence that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.  Only in a Commu/Fasci/Socialist nation ruled by a Kenyan-born Muslim could filth like this pass as art. NOWHERE in the Consty Tooshin does it say that lesbian images can be publicly displayed.  Let's impeach this S.O.B. rat now!!!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Denno66posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Here here! Damn, where's my pike?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Off with his bloody head!!

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            Pike?  Hell boy this here's the U S of A where a fella has a right to bear arms!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Denno66posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               This qualifies as my 'I can't top that' moment.Giggity.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Ron I didn't know we were related! You handle the family physique quite well.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     It started out as just hairy palms and then I discovered the second ammendment.  It's the coolest of the ammendments.  If I were a consty tushunal ammendment, I would want to be the second.

                     replyreport
   5. 76

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Is it a scene from the Roman Polanski / Hugh Heffner version of MacBeth

      replyreport
      1. 0

         cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         [/b]
         
         haha!

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            More like Carmina Burana.

            replyreport
   6. 77

      Tadeusz598posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "Appropriate" for what?
      
      What a strange question.
      
      It is surely important for artists to explore the themes that interest them and for the general public to have access to their discoveries.
      
      This includes themes such as extreme violence as in crucifixions, or sensual love.

      replyreport
   7. 71

      waynetposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Looks like 5 inflatable dolls having a dancing party....Are you there Mavis?, I miss you!!

      replyreport
2. 60

   tantrumposted 8 years ago

   I don't see anything I haven't seen millions of times in museum: People staring at pictures.
   
   where's the sex education ?

   replyreport
   1. 42

      Michael77posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The sex education is hidden behind the eye of a wanting lustful eye, appalled to speak of such individualized cravings, to each his/her own, to speak about it/as if to ruin it or too vague to discern a proper discription. To do it and actualize it is but the best education- invariably in the long run

      replyreport
3. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

   I snapped this picture over the holidays. I'm not saying there is or isn't anything wrong with it or with what is happening. The adults were asking the children what they see, what they thought was happening and where etc. I thought some of the kids were maybe too young for such a discussion considering the limits placed upon other media such as TV and print in the USA. For example if that painting had been reproduced in a photograph using real people could it be shown on TV or in a newspaper?

   replyreport
4. 60

   tantrumposted 8 years ago

   ???
   where is the porn ?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, I suppose that is subjective isn't it? Isn't that the purpose of art to provoke thought and discussion?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         But that's not porn. Is only nakedness. I've seen that picture and it's totally innocent.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Well I agree, but obviously others hold a different view which is perhaps just as valid.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               It would only be valid is they defined it properly, otherwise, their biased view causes a wrong interpretation/definition.

               replyreport
      2. 54

         The Ropeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         ...and to expand the mind.  Pushing individuals to delve into their own creativity and look beyond the obvious.

         replyreport
      3. 42

         Michael77posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Very subjective.... as I feed my pleasures with visions cast, as to model the porno graphic thoughts in every moment lost.....pleasing thyself again and again.....until you come, come into your very own porn.. you the star,, on fire wanting more, more, more

         replyreport
5. 58

   Colebabieposted 8 years ago

   Not porn. And I see no problem with children viewing it and discussing it with adults. When I was a child I could recognize David. In this particular case I can just see that there is a group of people looking at art.
   
   pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
   
   I highly doubt the artist of this piece had the sole intention of turing people on.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong.
      Indoctrination.
      Trying to publicly mainstream things that should be private.
      Anti-Biblical.
      "Turning people on" to the idea that group public nakedness is okay.
      
      Easily understood that that's the objective.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Colebabieposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Umm sorry Brenda but I couldn't disagree more. Do you honestly think that people who look at this painting will be convinced to hold hands with others and dance naked in a circle in public? That isn't the point.
         
         And while some things that are natural aren't very visually appealing (such as your examples) nudity to me is not one of them. Nudity to me can be artistically beautiful and meaningful. If you don't feel that way, then this painting isn't for you. Just as your Bible isn't for me.

         replyreport
      2. 53

         Michel Ditloveposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         "pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"
         
         That's a good thing, a lot of people need this.
         
         "Anti-Biblical." Leave religion out of this, more people than not don't even buy the "bible".
         
         "Turning people on" to the idea that group public nakedness is okay.
         
         Of course it is.

         replyreport
      3. 66

         Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Don't take your kids to museums or Italian cathedrals. And maybe you should censor certain racy passages in the Bible as well.

         replyreport
6. 0

   Denno66posted 8 years ago

   Making nudity a dirty thing does more harm to a person than just showing it for what it is: having no clothes on. We're born that way, why is it sinful to show a natural thing; you'll notice I covered up my avatar for fear of offending someone, BTW.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Oh good grief!
      
      I think you do humans (including little children) a disservice by assuming they don't know what nudity is,  and that it has no place being blatantly illustrated before their very noses.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Cagsilposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         WOW! Do you always oppress others?

         replyreport
7. 0

   Denno66posted 8 years ago

   I didn't say they don't know what that is, I merely state that it is completely natural; many cultures around the world see nudity either fully or partially as a non-issue. Only the so-called civilized societies find this to be repulsive.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      and dirty minds.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Denno66posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, yeah dirty minds. Forgot that.

         replyreport
   2. 55

      moanalisaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I lived in Europe for 6 years. There is hardly a city you go to where you do not see some statue (very often a rather realistic depiction, as opposed to the painting you show) that displays some form of nudity. Go to the museums there, you see even more. What I see is art.

      replyreport
8. 82

   Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

   There is a difference between nudity and paintings of nudity. I guess you approved of those who painted underwear on Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
9. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 8 years ago

   It's also completely "natural" to pick your nose with your finger and wipe snot on your sleeve,  but who the heck wants to see you do that in public or without a Kleenex?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      ew.
      
      i think you may be taking this painting too literally, if you don't mind my saying so.
      
      
      
      
      i have to see those in person before i die.

      replyreport
   2. 88

      Len Cannonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I'll leave you to do what comes naturally then.

      replyreport
10. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 8 years ago

    It's "natural" to urinate and defecate.
    But who the heck wants to be a witness to someone else doing that?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Nakedness is not dirty. Doesn't have anything to do with 'fluids'
       Nakedness is free and beautiful.

       replyreport
11. 82

    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    This thread has got me thinking that I have to add a Matisse biography to my artist hubs. Maybe Botticelli too and Michelangelo of course...

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       and why not Rubens

       replyreport
       1. 82

          Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Of course

          replyreport
    2. 60

       Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Mapplethorpe?

       replyreport
       1. 82

          Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Nah...I find his photographs just a bit much...
          If people like it, I have no objection to them looking at it, but it's just not me.

          replyreport
12. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    Well, it's also completely natural to respond to the 'call of nature' as well, but, you're talking about differing degrees of common sense. In our society, nudity is taboo(sigh), but in others'; no.

    replyreport
13. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 8 years ago

    Sure thing.
    
    Might as well pose 'em urinating against a tree too!   why not?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Denno66posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       I'm sure you can get someone to paint that for you, sure.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I repeat you pose I'll paint

          replyreport
    2. 53

       Michel Ditloveposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Damn right why not, I could make a beautiful photograph of just that, what differentiates art from non art is not the subject matter, that is totally the artists province, but what the artist does with it and how he/she interprets and presents it.
       
       You have no right to even comment on an artists choice of subject matter, if you don't like it, don't look at it.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Wow.  Like someone else said, I thought this thread was dead too.
          But since it's here again, I will exercise my rights to ...um....COMMENT on it again!  LOL.   
          Who are you referring to that you think has "no right" to comment on...anything at all?
          Doesn't really matter;  if YOU have a right to comment on it,  so does everyone else.   Your comment is total hogwash.

          replyreport
          1. 66

             Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             How did you like David, Brenda? I hope you covered your eyes and didn't peek between your fingers!

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Very funny.
                I think David's nudity is simply unnecessary and detracts from the strength of the statue's meaningful impact.
                But hey, I'm not shocked; I'm not as prudish as you might expect.   I've seen and experienced and done more than my fair share of shameful things, of which I'm eternally grateful to be forgiven for.  As far as nudity, I just think it has its proper place, whether one is a Christian or not,  and it's not in public, for one thing.

                replyreport
    3. 66

       Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Or perhaps f**king?

       replyreport
14. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 8 years ago

    It wasn't me who defined Michelangelo's paintings as "art", and it doesn't make them "art" just because they're in a chapel, or just 'cause they're labeled "religious".

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Tell me what artists you like?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          another gaaah!
          
          this reminds me of that Marge Simpson vs. Itchy & Scratchy episode, except Marge appreciated masterpieces of art.

          replyreport
          1. 79

             Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Wasn't there an episode where Marge posed in the nude? I think I remember that one!

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Denno66posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                That blue hair...Oh, that blue hair!

                replyreport
                1. 82

                   Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   Both?

                   replyreport
                   1. 79

                      Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      Shes gottta be a natural blue!!

                      replyreport
                2. 79

                   Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   Gets my chest hairs curlin just to think about it!

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      I have that issue of Playboy.
                      
                      Great articles.

                      replyreport
15. 79

    Hmrjmr1posted 8 years ago

    you pose I'll paint

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       You can paint me nude, and then I'll use it as an avatar.

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Just send him a few photos.

          replyreport
16. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 8 years ago

    I don't have any favorite artist.
    
    I simply buy portraits or landscapes if they're interesting or pretty, to decorate my home or whatever.
    
    It wouldn't matter to me if I could get a Michelangelo for a dollar bill.  I'd probably sell it and buy a dozen prettier ones by some unknown painter.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       my god

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Who's your god?  Michelangelo?  haha
          
          
          
          And of course I'd use the rest of the money for something very useful....like food or bills.......
          
          I have no preference for any painter or artist or celebrity, dead or living, simply because they're "famous" or "great".
          
          Same with antiques of any kind.
          
          If it's not pleasing to my eye or ear,  or has some sort of sentimental value, then it has no value to me except to re-sell perhaps.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             no, i was just nonplussed. well to each her own.
             
             
             
             
             
             haha!!
             
             i do happen to like those poker playing dogs though...that painting is all right in my book.
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             hee hee you guys.

             replyreport
    2. 82

       Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       If you get a Michelangelo sell it to me for $1 and I'll give you as many paintings on black velvet as you want

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Ha!Ha!

          replyreport
17. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    Beauty is in the eye of the Beerholder.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tantrumposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Give me a Guiness then!

          replyreport
18. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    Well, you know if you have to time to notice.....

    replyreport
19. 88

    Len Cannonposted 8 years ago

    Its the MoMA. If you're going to be offended by this, you're not the type of person whose going to go in for a visit in the first place.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Brenda Durhamposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Possibly.
       
       It is sad, though, to know that many people are taken in by the stuff.   Those who follow the Emperor whose "new clothes" aren't even there.....

       replyreport
20. 88

    Len Cannonposted 8 years ago

    I bet you'd be a big fan of Thomas Kinkade.

    replyreport
    1. 86

       kerrygposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Speaking of public urination...

       replyreport
21. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    His pictures are actually pretty easy on the eyes.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       yeah TK is pretty good, not Michalangelo but one of the better realists of the day..

       replyreport
22. 80

    IntimatEvolutionposted 8 years ago

    Oh my, where is RKHenry?  He has several hubs on the subject matter.  I love the one about Nudity and Prudes.  He has another titled "Penises, Pubic Hair or Art."  They talk about the very subject matter.  Some very enlightening views on what once was "banned" and how ridiculous this modern era has become concerning art.  I highly recommend the read.

    replyreport
23. 82

    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    

    replyreport
24. 88

    Len Cannonposted 8 years ago

    Good night, everybody!

    replyreport
25. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    Nite Len.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Good nite Lad!

       replyreport
26. 82

    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    

    replyreport
27. 82

    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Got to see that up close in 1979 when I took three day pass from Germany, Amazing!

       replyreport
28. 80

    IntimatEvolutionposted 8 years ago

    
    
    http://hubpages.com/hub/Nipples--Penise … air-or-Art

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       I bet Brenda really has trouble handling David!

       replyreport
29. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    Is that a tie on his shoulder? Am I the only one to notice that?

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       thats his sling for throwing his rocks!!

       replyreport
30. 82

    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    I would love to see David in person...maybe one day...

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Colebabieposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Me too.

       replyreport
    2. 54

       sooner than laterposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       God resurects the dead to stand with the living. But from my reading, it doesn't look like there is much time to chit chat.

       replyreport
31. 60

    Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago

    It must have been cold when Dave posed for the statue.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Colebabieposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       The larger a penis is when it is flaccid, the less it will expand when erect.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Your information is based on how many "experiments"?
          
          Besides, I was talking about his THO's

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Colebabieposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             It is from a Sexual Health resource. Not from personal experience

             replyreport
       2. 79

          Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Nope aint gonna go there!

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Yeah, I was gonna ask if it's 10" long flaccid how much would you really want it to expand, but that would be crude so I won't.

             replyreport
32. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    He's holding his age pretty well for what? 500 some odd?

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Hmrjmr1posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       especially considering he's never had a beer

       replyreport
33. 58

    Colebabieposted 8 years ago

    It isn't crude, and in that rare circumstance someone probably wouldn't mind if it didn't expand much. Point being, just checking someone out in the shower (or in statue form) doesn't determine how well endowed they are.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Are you implying that I check guys out in the shower?  It was just that one time!

       replyreport
34. 0

    shinujohn2008posted 8 years ago

    

    replyreport
35. 82

    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    Thought this thread was dead and buried.

    replyreport
36. 0

    Denno66posted 8 years ago

    Guess not.

    replyreport
37. 60

    tantrumposted 8 years ago

    It's the pornography !
    
    

    replyreport
38. 64

    RosWebbARTposted 8 years ago

    This is one of my favorite artists and I cannot see where the porn is in this art.

    replyreport
39. 84

    Ben Zoltakposted 8 years ago

    Nudity does not necessarily equal pornography. Oftentimes, adverse reactions to any nudity does signify provincialism though.

    replyreport
40. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years ago

    You mean to tell me you still don't know what men and women look like without clothes? So now we have to look at them so you can keep it straight? Just get a picture and put it in your wallet! That isn't that hard people!

    replyreport
41. 69

    Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

    I think it's a beautiful painting.  When I look at it I see joy, vibrancy, spontaneity, strength, and resilience.  I like the sensual lines. The figures are nude but I don't see it conveying sexuality in the prurient sense, it's not licentious. To me the dancers are being carefree and natural.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Ben Zoltakposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       As the Brits say, spot on.

       replyreport
42. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 8 years ago

    Lets face it there's no sense muddying the waters with morality. With so many single parent families we may as well encourage our children to act out so they can get pregnant. Then the ones that are already there won't feel bad about themselves. Is there no end to evil?

    replyreport