Abuse: In the name of art

[Jacques]

Yes I did look at the "work" before commenting.

[Jacques]

No I don't like "to pick a fight" I just don't like you or anything that comes out of your mouth and I'm not the only one.

I called it porographic as it has no artistic merrit and is explotative against childern - and that's good enough for me to call it pornographic, hell I might even call it obscene.

Why don't you take a look and decide for yourself?

[strictlybroadband]

I'm sure you did - I was referring to the guys who piled in you condemn, but clearly don't know what they were condemning. Such lack of independent thought... sad, isn't it?

[mart]

Oh come off it. I know language evolves but if you are going to let people use words any way they like we are in Alice in Wonderland land or was that Through the Looking Glass.

Mart

[mart]

I guess you just took exception to what was a perfectly straightforward question. But you seem to be that sort of person.

Mart

[Jacques]

Nope - I take exception to you. I remember you from two maybe three years ago on here. I didn't like you then and I don't like you now.

You are in an elite group of three people that I fucking despise on here. Two I just plain ignore because they are too stupid to realise what twunts they are, whereas you....well us older forumites know what you are.

[IdolDroog]

You can say that most words evolve and that many adopt new definitions, but I don't see how you can call pornography one of them - the only part of the definition of pornography that changes are the mediums (media) of photography - video- internet etc.....

Ive seen the work now and you can't see any of the childs bodies other than the collarbone up mostly - its probably explotative. It's probably wrong. But it's not pornographic even in the sense of child pornography - their "nudity" isnt sexualised but works contextually with the emotional provocation.

Ive also re-read Jacques post again now and it didnt read the same 2nd time around. He did say "child pornography" which wasnt as bad as just pornography as i first thought. Either way - i would suggest nudity in art and pornography do link frequently but this is (hopefully) not one of them.....

[Fred]

The source of Jacques original post?

http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/jill-gree ... n-who.html

[The Last Word]

I suppose, once again, the controversy surrounding the method is there to obscure the fact that the end results aren't actually much cop.

[fudgeflaps]

It's not the first time trauma has been induced on innocent kids in the name of art.

On Lou Reed's album, 'Berlin', a rather dark, yet much-heralded macabre work from the 70s, there was a sequence in one of the songs featuring horrendous, disturbing wailing and crying from some kids to accentuate the mood of the song- powerful stuff indeed, veering on the unpleasant.

How was this acheived?

The children were told their parents had died, and the end 'result' recorded.

Yout general point, while being technically correct in terms of being 'pornography', is not 'pornography' by my definition- ie, a piece produced for nefarious, depraved paedophilic intent. Rather, it constitutes a massive breach of standards, decency and, perhaps, humanity itself and the fact that this has gone ahead in the big, inbred-hicksville wild-west saloon that is the U.S. of A is another grave indictment of that fucked-up country. What do the parents get out of it? Look at my wee Jimmy, he's famous, he's involved in something of high-profile importance, let's boast to the neighbours as we are so fucking great?

Turner Prize? It Turned my stomach.