Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Grow the Eff Up Artsy people


Boges

Recommended Posts

Ah, so we arrive at the crux of your outrage.

Nude paintings and statues of naked heroes traditionally have "tiny package," yes.

If he had painted the PM as a porn star, would that have been preferable? Would the manliness of contemporary conservatism be more aptly delineated?

I simply think it's outrageous to paint a nude picture of someone without their permission - real or fantasy. I'm betting most of you would be more than a little unhappy if someone did that to you and put it out there for all to see. You think this is funny because you hate Stephen Harper, that's all, so you think anything done to him is great. That's an ignorant, adolescent mentality, and I'm willing to bet you'd be less sanguine if the picture was of someone you didn't hate, especially if it was a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can see how humour might be intimidating to someone with no sense of it.

It's been a long time since I was twelve. Maybe you people could clue me in about the girlish giggles you enjoy at someone painting a naked picture of someone....

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I simply think it's outrageous to paint a nude picture of someone without their permission - real or fantasy. I'm betting most of you would be more than a little unhappy if someone did that to you and put it out there for all to see. You think this is funny because you hate Stephen Harper, that's all, so you think anything done to him is great. That's an ignorant, adolescent mentality, and I'm willing to bet you'd be less sanguine if the picture was of someone you didn't hate, especially if it was a woman.

I have to wonder what the reaction to a painting of a nude Queen Elizabeth, with a pot belly and boobs drooping down to her navel, would be - and if such a painting would be hung in a Canadian library. I know I wouldn't care to see it on my trips to the library....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply think it's outrageous to paint a nude picture of someone without their permission - real or fantasy. I'm betting most of you would be more than a little unhappy if someone did that to you and put it out there for all to see.

People in positions of power have to suck it up, I'm afraid.

As do their more sensitive defenders.

You think this is funny because you hate Stephen Harper, that's all

I don't hate anyone.

That's an ignorant, adolescent mentality

Yes, your caricature of my view is indeed ignorant and adolescent. But it isn't my view, so the point's not relevant.

and I'm willing to bet you'd be less sanguine if the picture was of someone you didn't hate, especially if it was a woman.

Not a woman with tremendous political power. I wouldn't object to someone doing the same with Thatcher or Clinton or Indira Gandhi or Benazir Bhutto. Not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Since you're asking, I believe my reaction would be arousal.

Actually, "asking" and "wondering" are two different things - but you do have my complete sympathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most popular art is brainless. This attempt at satire is like gangsta rap - no real depth, just profanity and shocking images. Instead of true wit we see locker room humour. Supporters bray like teenagers because they will bray at anything that attacks someone on their "evil" list, like Harper.

Folks might like to google up "spendthrift heirs". Once again, we are witnessing a social race to the bottom...

Sorry to hear youre shocked by painted nakeness, bro!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if it has always been the case that art is determined to be art by a small group of people or if some art like the Sistine Chapel is art for all people simply because it is truly art. It seems like the former is more the norm today.

Watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ only reinforced my beliefs that much of the modern art is simply decided to be art and the sort of people who buy it are simpletons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if it has always been the case that art is determined to be art by a small group of people or if some art like the Sistine Chapel is art for all people simply because it is truly art. It seems like the former is more the norm today.

Watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ only reinforced my beliefs that much of the modern art is simply decided to be art and the sort of people who buy it are simpletons.

Well, sure, the art world is a vastly varied place, and all sorts of crazy things are going to occur.

If we expand "art" to the world of film, for example--as we must--a lot of people enjoy the Transformers franchise, buy the tickets, maybe even the DVD with the "director's cut" (a sham, crude marketing idea in and of itself, incidentally, and meaningless) even though the Transformers is a crappy chunk of garbage, a terrible series of films. Same principle, at bottom. Or they like the Twilight books, for...some reason, never properly articulated. :)

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ only reinforced my beliefs that much of the modern art is simply decided to be art and the sort of people who buy it are simpletons.

I think there are more than a few people who will buy something just because someone tells them it's art. They might even hate it, but if they are convinced that it's "art," and they think it will therefore be impressive to have hanging on their walls, they will buy it and display it. Or they will ooooh and ahhhh over it if they can't afford it. "it's art, don't'cha know, and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like and/or appreciate it!" :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • 2 years later...

Ok. I wasn't commenting on the Harper painting, just the fact that Conservative PMs willingly posed nude a generation or so ago

This is a pathetic argument. How much of her body did you see other than her shoulders?

How would you personally feel if someone painted an imaginary nude picture of your flabby middle aged body and hung it in a public place and it got in the newspapers and on the internet? Do you think this is fair commentary? I think it more akin to adolescent bullying. If this were done to a female politician there'd be national outrage rather than ignorant sniggering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pathetic argument. How much of her body did you see other than her shoulders?

I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm just saying that posing nude isn't any big thing.

How would you personally feel if someone painted an imaginary nude picture of your flabby middle aged body and hung it in a public place and it got in the newspapers and on the internet?

I would be confused. If I were PM, though, I would probably see it as a form of protest or a curiosity. Maybe I would be offended.

Do you think this is fair commentary?

"Commentary"... not sure if it's any kind of commentary.

If this were done to a female politician there'd be national outrage rather than ignorant sniggering.

When Kim Campbell did it, they called her "Canada's Madonna". It's hard to predict how people would react without any context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...