jump to last post 1-42 of 42 discussions (131 posts)

Sex Education in the Museum Of Modern Art?

  1. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

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

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2679/4245992794_269616aaa5_m.jpg

    1. Shadesbreath profile image85
      Shadesbreathposted 7 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.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I see porn being passed off as art.

      1. profile image0
        cosetteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        yikes 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.

      2. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You would. smile

      3. kerryg profile image89
        kerrygposted 7 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.

      4. Tadeusz598 profile image61
        Tadeusz598posted 7 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.

      5. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      6. profile image47
        Patrick Oliverposted 7 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.

    3. sooner than later profile image57
      sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. sooner than later profile image57
          sooner than laterposted 7 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.

      2. profile image0
        Denno66posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Art, like opinions, are personal.

    4. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 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!!! mad

      1. profile image0
        Denno66posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Here here! Damn, where's my pike?

        1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
          Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Off with his bloody head!!

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

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

          1. profile image0
            Denno66posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
              Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 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.

    5. AdsenseStrategies profile image75
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. profile image0
        cosetteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        [/b]

        haha! big_smile

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          More like Carmina Burana.

    6. Tadeusz598 profile image61
      Tadeusz598posted 7 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.

    7. waynet profile image78
      waynetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  2. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 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 ?

    1. profile image45
      Michael77posted 7 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

  3. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 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?

  4. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    ???
    where is the porn ?

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 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?

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      2. The Rope profile image56
        The Ropeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      3. profile image45
        Michael77posted 7 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

  5. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.

      1. Colebabie profile image59
        Colebabieposted 7 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.

      2. Michel Ditlove profile image58
        Michel Ditloveposted 7 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.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 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.

  6. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 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. big_smile

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        WOW! Do you always oppress others?

  7. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 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.

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      and dirty minds.

      1. profile image0
        Denno66posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, yeah dirty minds. Forgot that.

    2. moanalisa profile image58
      moanalisaposted 7 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.

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 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?

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      lol

  9. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 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?

    1. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 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.

    2. Len Cannon profile image88
      Len Cannonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  10. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

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

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  11. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 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...

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      and why not Rubens

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Of course smile

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Mapplethorpe?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 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.

  12. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 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.

  13. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    Sure thing.

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

    1. profile image0
      Denno66posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
        Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I repeat you pose I'll paint cool

    2. Michel Ditlove profile image58
      Michel Ditloveposted 7 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.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Or perhaps f**king?

  14. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 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".

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Tell me what artists you like?

      1. profile image0
        cosetteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        another yikes gaaah!

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

        1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
          Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

          1. profile image0
            Denno66posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Both? lol

              1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
                Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Shes gottta be a natural blue!! big_smile cool

            2. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
              Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Gets my chest hairs curlin just to think about it! big_smile big_smile big_smile

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I have that issue of Playboy.

                Great articles.

  15. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
    Hmrjmr1posted 7 years ago

    you pose I'll paint

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Just send him a few photos.

  16. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      my god

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.

        1. profile image0
          cosetteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          no, i was just nonplussed. well to each her own.





          haha!! big_smile

          i do happen to like those poker playing dogs though...that painting is all right in my book.








          hee hee you guys. smile

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 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 smile

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Ha!Ha!

  17. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Beauty is in the eye of the Beerholder.

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this
      1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
        Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Give me a Guiness then! cool

  18. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

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

  19. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 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.....

  20. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

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

    1. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Speaking of public urination...

  21. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    His pictures are actually pretty easy on the eyes.

    1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
      Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  22. IntimatEvolution profile image71
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 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.

  23. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w84/xXmajorGraceXx/michelangelo.gif

  24. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

    Good night, everybody!

  25. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Nite Len.

    1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
      Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good nite Lad!

  26. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t69/wgal78/Michelangelo.jpg

  27. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f202/delovelyest/michelangelo-pieta.jpg

    1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
      Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  28. IntimatEvolution profile image71
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago
    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I bet Brenda really has trouble handling David!

  29. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

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

    1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
      Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      thats his sling for throwing his rocks!!

  30. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

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

    1. Colebabie profile image59
      Colebabieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Me too. smile

    2. sooner than later profile image57
      sooner than laterposted 7 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.

  31. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

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

    1. Colebabie profile image59
      Colebabieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Your information is based on how many "experiments"?

        Besides, I was talking about his THO's wink

        1. Colebabie profile image59
          Colebabieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

      2. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
        Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Nope aint gonna go there! cool

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 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.

  32. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

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

    1. Hmrjmr1 profile image83
      Hmrjmr1posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      especially considering he's never had a beer big_smile big_smile big_smile

  33. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 7 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.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

  34. profile image0
    shinujohn2008posted 7 years ago

    smilesmile

  35. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Thought this thread was dead and buried.

  36. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Guess not. big_smile

  37. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    It's the pornography !

    lol lol

  38. RosWebbART profile image67
    RosWebbARTposted 7 years ago

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

  39. Ben Zoltak profile image84
    Ben Zoltakposted 7 years ago

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

  40. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 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!

  41. Flightkeeper profile image74
    Flightkeeperposted 7 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.

    1. Ben Zoltak profile image84
      Ben Zoltakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      As the Brits say, spot on.

  42. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 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?

 
working