ItzMePuffPuff:
Their strippers,Not brainless,they can understand.
☆☆☆☆
It's yer reasoning faculties in question
shen u can't grasp that all u said before was the exact reason this piecie is not art .

TheSonOfMark:


Give it up, cupcake, you've never been the sharpest tool in the box or yard. The photo shoot itself is to convey a message; heck, messages even.

-A nude dark-skinned female to represent stripped, pillaged Africa;
-Chains to represent limitations, leash, stagnation;
-Bible to represent Christianity, missionaries/colonialists and, by extension, religion.

The whole set-up depicts either or both of the scenarios explained in my prequel posts.

Screw the euphemisms, Valerie, you're dumb.

Laws o massy cant u see that makes it no art.
☆☆☆☆☆
please im "dumb" because i dont share yer viewpoints.

Fabulocity:
How utterly revolting! The type of eyesore people put out there in the name of Art. This looks like a backyard, wannabe artist's impression of whatever vague message he was trying to pass across. True Art had just been bastardized.

JuicyLucy:
To me I see the message as women being chained by religion.

Fabulocity:
How utterly revolting! The type of eyesore people put out there in the name of Art. This looks like a backyard, wannabe artist's impression of whatever vague message he was trying to pass across. True Art had just been bastardized.

TheSonOfMark:


Give it up, cupcake, you've never been the sharpest tool in the box or yard. The photo shoot itself is to convey a message; heck, messages even.

-A nude dark-skinned female to represent stripped, pillaged Africa;
-Chains to represent limitations, leash, stagnation;
-Bible to represent Christianity, missionaries/colonialists and, by extension, religion.

The whole set-up depicts either or both of the scenarios explained in my prequel posts.

Screw the euphemisms, Valerie, you're dumb.

Raine80:

You have just made my day no scarp it you have just made my whole month!

why

Raine80:

Or vice versa the loss of dignity and status due of religion

ItzMePuffPuff:
why

TheSonOfMark:


No, she's not. I might be a Christian but one with a discerning mind who appreciates art for what it is.

The photographer/visual artist is portraying religion as a chain, a leash which limits humanity in a way albeit an obscene display to jar our senses and, yes, to be controversial.


Whether I agree with the message being passed across is a different issue entirely but this is art and it's powerful. [/b]

JuicyLucy:


Soz I don't understand what you mean

ItzMePuffPuff:
why

JuicyLucy:


How can you not see the art? It's making us aware of slavery which is the same point you're making.

Raine80:

i agree with you! There is that better?

Raine80:

You have just made my day no scarp it you have just made my whole month!

JuicyLucy:


Are you being sarcastic now? I just didn’t understand the vise versa part. Agree or don't agree makes no difference to me.

Raine80:

I don't bicker online ma'am not my style I rephrased it in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

TheSonOfMark:


Art is art regardless of which side of the moral divide you stand on.

The true greats like Da Vinci and Michael Angelo sculpted/painted nude works.

Erm, what's "true art" again? Get it now?

TheSonOfMark:

Art inclined, yes? Finally, a redeemer to salvage the image of the happy-go-lucky, sapheads who've registered their ignorance on this thread.

ItzMePuffPuff:
Laws o massy cant u see that makes it no art.
☆☆☆☆☆
please im "dumb" because i dont share yer viewpoints.

TheSonOfMark:


God help your future kids for having the misfortune of being birthed by a dumbo. And the man who'd contemplate to sire them with you? I'd hold back the scathing remarks I have for him.

Shut up Guy u just go on and on.
U didnt even have a point 2 argue anymore!

TheSonOfMark:


[size=20pt] God help your future kids for having the misfortune of being birthed by a dumbo. And the man who'd contemplate to sire them with you? I'd hold back the scathing remarks I have for him. [/size]

Chei, this is _fucking wicked!!!

Fabulocity:
Some talentless "artists", whom I refer to as faux artists have broken the record in being uncreative . It seems as if they're all running out of ideas and as a consequence, they resort to harbouring strange and unsusual ideas and tag it as art to sort of justify it. I've seen lots of bullshit art churned out by these bunch of people who are only desperate for fame and money without taking into recognition what true art is all about, expressing oneself in his own unique way. I've seen/ read about a lot of these strange and wacky arts in circulation- Like the artist who sold his shït in a can and called it art. Or is it the lady that vomits colored milk on a canvass and sells it for thousand if dollars. Her own version of "art". Or the one that littered the floor with beer bottles in his own representation of art. And then this one featured here, which I can't even interpete. It's not the nuditthat bothers me, but the motive behind the display of such

Maybe I'm not just an artsy person, or my idea and representation of art is too conventional. But I'd never agree in a thousand years that display such as this can be called art.

TheSonOfMark:
. Do the necessary research on nude art.
This piece - the art work being disputed - is as telling as the Monalisa, I dare assert. A one-theme picture with a thousand stories behind it. Racism, colonialism, the ills and pros of religion, the inhumanity of humans and the flickering light of hope in despair... I could write tens of stories from that piece.



I suppose this sums it up but, then again, it's why it is art - to be interpreted by the viewer in different ways...and to elicit diverging opinions and reactions.