Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

256 | 257 | 258

 ... 954

Next

susannah_breslin

susannah_breslin

I'm lost
June 2005

JAN 19, 2006 11:51 AM

A series of porn star portraits on view at the PalmBeach3 contemporary art fair were shielded after local officials complained about the graphic nature of the photographs. The photos are from XXX: 30 Porn-Star Portraits by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders. Several photographs sold, despite the censoring.

"They objected to the genitalia and even more the expression on the women's faces, which suggested pornography," fair director Natalia Hnatiuk said. "They said, 'That can't be allowed here.' The fair was opening. I didn't know what to do. The photographs were a good part of the exhibit. I grabbed a white cloth and draped it over the objectionable parts."

McLaughlin said convention center management had been alerted to the photographs by a center employee. The licensing agreement with convention center renters stipulates that "you can't have anything in there that's lewd and lascivious," he said. "We suggested that it was in a bad spot in case kids and families came through."

It's true that lewdness, like art, is in the eye of the beholder, McLaughlin said, but "the point is this is a public building. A private building is a lot different. This is owned by the county, and we don't want someone coming in and complaining about something and the county saying to us, 'Why didn't you follow your contract?'"

via Page Six

seanvegas

seanvegas

Lincoln, NE
December 2004

JAN 19, 2006 12:07 PM

Hm, his web site didn't have much in the way of anything that would be objectionable, so without seeing the photographs in question it's hard to judge if the government made the right move. "Suggested pornography." sounds a bit ambiguous to me. Porn, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. But if his contract with the building did say something along the lines of "no nudity", then that would be different.

alpha_hazard

alpha_hazard

Fort Collins, CO
April 2004

JAN 19, 2006 12:35 PM

the book is available at most book stores that have art books and he was on some news magazine like 60 minutes or it may have even been CBS sunday morning. I understand why some people would not like them being displayed, but there are two images per star, one clothed, and one naked. it would have been easy to have the clothed ones displayed and then have the nude ones already draped with cloth or in some rear area facing away from the convention floor. Whatever...I'm not surprised all the same.

AceTracer

acetracer

Hollywood, FL
January 2004

JAN 19, 2006 12:44 PM

As usual with this kind of argument, it's an issue of community standards. The book in question is on display in most bookstores here, where families and children freely roam, but travel up north a bit and they probably won't even have it in stock.

corsair

corsair

USA
July 2004

JAN 19, 2006 12:52 PM

Censorship is alive and well! If the photos depicted graphic killings however, there wouldn't have been a problem! Much like the movies we're "allowed" to see . . violence, killing,and war, are just fine for our protected viewing . . . . but God forbid, there should be any sex. If people are going to do something as disgusting and harmful as make love . . . we certainly wouldn't want to see it!

Assholes!

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

JAN 19, 2006 01:30 PM

Corsair said:
Censorship is alive and well! If the photos depicted graphic killings however, there wouldn't have been a problem! Much like the movies we're "allowed" to see . . violence, killing,and war, are just fine for our protected viewing . . . . but God forbid, there should be any sex. If people are going to do something as disgusting and harmful as make love . . . we certainly wouldn't want to see it!

Assholes!



Well-played. Your argument reminds me of the whole Grand Theft Auto "Hot Coffee" fiasco.

-TM

DeceptiviewFilm

DeceptiviewFilm

Parlin, NJ
February 2004

JAN 19, 2006 01:49 PM

i saw this book in barnes and noble. Interesting artwork.

alpha_hazard

alpha_hazard

Fort Collins, CO
April 2004

JAN 19, 2006 03:16 PM

Corsair said:
Censorship is alive and well! If the photos depicted graphic killings however, there wouldn't have been a problem! Much like the movies we're "allowed" to see . . violence, killing,and war, are just fine for our protected viewing . . . . but God forbid, there should be any sex. If people are going to do something as disgusting and harmful as make love . . . we certainly wouldn't want to see it!

Assholes!



People simply find violence less obscene than nudity because they think it has context and justification, whereas while they probably see their naked bodies every day, folks like these would probably prefer to shower fully clothed or not at all...

The fact of the matter is that in a society in which the progenitors saw to place for sensual activity, any activity without goals is looked down upon, hence, righteous and even unrighteous violence have a place because some end comes of them, while sex, eating, music, and other forms of activity that appeal to the senses, such as art, have to be justified in order to have a place.

<Edit> that is not to say that violence IS justifiable, only that folks tend to vindicate most forms of violence by making it appear as though it actually achieved something.

[Edited on Jan 19, 2006 3:16PM]

dingoes8

dingoes8

Milwaukee, WI
March 2004

JAN 19, 2006 03:22 PM

"the expression on the women's faces, which suggested pornography"

confused

I saw a special on HBO about the shooting of this book. It's not like it's pictures of girls screaming in ecstacy while they're getting fucked in their asses. They're standing there in front of the camera alone, looking natural.

corsair

corsair

USA
July 2004

JAN 20, 2006 06:52 AM

alpha_hazard said:

"People simply find violence less obscene than nudity"

and . . " while sex, eating, music, and other forms of activity that appeal to the senses, such as art, have to be justified in order to have a place"

<Edit> that is not to say that violence IS justifiable, only that folks tend to vindicate most forms of violence by making it appear as though it actually achieved something.

[Edited on Jan 19, 2006 3:16PM]



I don't disagree with your conclusion, but boy, does this ever suggest that our society needs an overhaul! We tried to change all this back in the 60s . . . . however, lately it appears that our government, as wrongly influenced by the overly vocal moral "minority", once again has us heading backward in terms of social development, toward more restrictive, if not puritanical, times.. Once again it seems that social mores are being legislated. I personally think that the prevalence of violence in our socielty, as found not only in the press, but in movies, rap music, and video games, is capable of long-term adverse effect on all of us, and our way of life. Are peace and love just an unatainable ideal? I certainly hope not!

Szaltax

Szaltax

Meaford, ON
October 2004

JAN 20, 2006 10:22 AM

Yes, im sure if they had pictures of tastefully displayed corpses there would be no probelm......

benizdead

benizdead

United Kingdom
February 2003

JAN 20, 2006 01:09 PM

don't you watch the news?

Szaltax

Szaltax

Meaford, ON
October 2004

JAN 20, 2006 02:27 PM

Actually no, I dont. I dont watch television at all. Believe me when I say you will not miss it at all when you stop watching it.

Dizzy

Dizzy

Los Angeles, CA
January 2004

JAN 20, 2006 03:04 PM

dingoes8 said:
"the expression on the women's faces, which suggested pornography"

confused

I saw a special on HBO about the shooting of this book. It's not like it's pictures of girls screaming in ecstacy while they're getting fucked in their asses. They're standing there in front of the camera alone, looking natural.




I saw that special. It was quite tame and tastefully done. There wasn't anything in there that was over the top at all.