The Met will keep Theresa Dreaming for display,

You can google this guys other works and see he clearly has issues. I guess one man's art is another man's child porn.
 
Is this statue, in public in Brussels, child pornography?

statue-of-manneken-pis.jpg
 
How about this one - also in Brussels (I chose a picture of her clothed because otherwise you can see, well, you get the idea)?

824ef307082047a44bd99e7b5ccf64a6--jeanneke-pis-brussels-belgium.jpg
 


Perhaps this one?

bcpnews-thinking-about-the-ugly-baby-jesuses-at-the-walters-20150821


By the way: that kid is ripped! I don't know what the medieval workout program for infants was, but dang.
 
@rastahomie I'm sure to some they are.

I'm not going to debate every single work of art that depicts a naked child with you.
I think there is a big difference in a naked statue of a toddler peeing and some of the works of the artist we are talking about in this thread.
If you don't think he had issues then that is OK, I definitely do and if I knew him my pubescent daughter wouldn't be allowed near him.
Do I think his work should be banned from museums, I don't care one way or another.
 


@rastahomie I'm sure to some they are.

I'm not going to debate every single work of art that depicts a naked child with you.
I think there is a big difference in a naked statue of a toddler peeing and some of the works of the artist we are talking about in this thread.
If you don't think he had issues then that is OK, I definitely do and if I knew him my pubescent daughter wouldn't be allowed near him.
Do I think his work should be banned from museums, I don't care one way or another.

Oh the guy definitely had issues. And I wouldn't want my daughters near him, either. But I don't think that detracts from the artistic significance of his works. Lewis Carroll also had issues, and a careful reading of his stories reveals that Alice's adventures are metaphors for her own sexuality - but that doesn't detract from the cultural and literary significance of his Alice books.
 
Clearly the problem must be that I'm offended by nudity in art, because of course that must be it. I must be in favor of a campaign to clear out the museums of the world, because that's the logical conclusion to my thoughts.

Funny enough on page one I was simply a dolt who jumped onto a bandwagon of things to be offended by, because surely anyone who looks at the portrait and doesn't shrug and declare it completely innocuous must have their mind in the gutter or be caught up in today's sexualization of children. When I expressed my independent line of thought regarding this particular artist I was thoughtfully? provided a link to the current controversy. Why? I have no idea. It has no bearing on my thoughts about the artist and his feti -- er, motivations. I truly do not care if my opinion is entirely unpopular or mocked, have at it, enjoy, I put them out there on a discussion board. I do not appreciate being told why I hold the opinion I do simply because it's assumed to be part of some controversy that's currently trending on social media or elsewhere.

I shared my opinion and some background information regarding it. I've said I don't care to participate in what I see as this artist's twisted game --and make no mistake, I think he very much intended to parade his motivations right underneath the noses of the public. I didn't say the museum shouldn't display the work. I didn't say anyone else should be prevented from seeing the work. I thought maybe some might be interested in why the entire story of this piece perhaps isn't apparent by a glance at what appears to be a fairly benign image within the frame.
 
Clearly the problem must be that I'm offended by nudity in art, because of course that must be it. I must be in favor of a campaign to clear out the museums of the world, because that's the logical conclusion to my thoughts.

Funny enough on page one I was simply a dolt who jumped onto a bandwagon of things to be offended by, because surely anyone who looks at the portrait and doesn't shrug and declare it completely innocuous must have their mind in the gutter or be caught up in today's sexualization of children. When I expressed my independent line of thought regarding this particular artist I was thoughtfully? provided a link to the current controversy. Why? I have no idea. It has no bearing on my thoughts about the artist and his feti -- er, motivations. I truly do not care if my opinion is entirely unpopular or mocked, have at it, enjoy, I put them out there on a discussion board. I do not appreciate being told why I hold the opinion I do simply because it's assumed to be part of some controversy that's currently trending on social media or elsewhere.

I shared my opinion and some background information regarding it. I've said I don't care to participate in what I see as this artist's twisted game --and make no mistake, I think he very much intended to parade his motivations right underneath the noses of the public. I didn't say the museum shouldn't display the work. I didn't say anyone else should be prevented from seeing the work. I thought maybe some might be interested in why the entire story of this piece perhaps isn't apparent by a glance at what appears to be a fairly benign image within the frame.

Well since the girl in the painting that this all started over is not nude, I am not sure how anyone came to the conclusion that you are offended by nudity.

Here is the thing, the articles and the controversy was over THIS painting. Not the artist, not his total works but one painting. Whatever was going on with the man, I don't believe it shows in this painting.

I have looked at his other paintings. Some, like Guitar Lesson are a bit disturbing. Some its hard to say whether the subject is a young girl or a grown woman. Some there is nothing there to suggest anything.

Incidentally, I never said you should get your mind out of the gutter. I said people. You had not even commented when I first said that. You then asked "should I" and I more or less said if the shoe fits, wear it. My comments about people looking for something to be offended by were made BEFORE you commented so I am really unsure how you manage to take offense to them.

What I find interesting, is that you say you have studied some art, but don't claim to have studied this artist, and you are assuming from his work that he had some issues with young girls. And it may be true, not doubting that. But that still doesn't mean its not an assumption. So, I take it then that you don't know if the parents of these girls that modeled for him were with them? Or if he had full permission to do this paintings with these models and had supervision the whole time?

So if we don't know these things, because of his subject matter, we are going to assume that he was a pedophile? We are going to assume that he had other plans than just paintings for these children? So do we think that of any artist from yesterday or today or somewhere in between that uses children in their art?

Look at Brooke Shields, for instance. Not quite as long ago. Photo shoots that were quite provocative at quite a young age. Do we assume that her photographer was a pedophile?

Or the director of Blue Lagoon?
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!






Top