Fop 1 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 As though Elton John is into young lasses. Clearly it's all a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Elton bought it off Glitter when he was trying to raise his bail money apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RlCO 0 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Naked open legged 4 year old according to the radio. Plenty of self described 'well balanced' people portrayed as shocked and offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I have to say, if it is as described I'd be a little uncomfortable looking at it. Saying that though, isn't art all about what people perceive? I expect only people who are that way inclined would see it as child porn. It's not like it's a picture of a little girl getting rodgered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RlCO 0 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 "The Devil's Playground" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14042 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Probably pulled because it could be offensive to the McCanns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Naked open legged 4 year old according to the radio. Plenty of self described 'well balanced' people portrayed as shocked and offended. "Klara and Edda belly-dancing" misleading title then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Not suprised to see the Lord of the Rings owns it, next Jono King tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RlCO 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Collection pulled by the Baltic - apparently it's not complete without the kiddie porn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RlCO 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Naked open legged 4 year old according to the radio. Plenty of self described 'well balanced' people portrayed as shocked and offended. "Klara and Edda belly-dancing" misleading title then. Just seen it on the news with the newsreader's hand covering the 4 year old. She's on the floor with another kid standing over her, in a kind of dancy type pose. Still the title is pretty far removed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Link if anyones interested http://hitsusa.com/blog/140/klara-and-edda-belly-dancing/ Can't blame people for freaking out really, yeah it could be classed art and could say to a degree its cultural but in this day and age it's in poor taste really. Her work in general is contraversial, is that her point with this? If it is, she's doing a good job. What ever happened to keeping kids innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Link if anyones interested http://hitsusa.com/blog/140/klara-and-edda-belly-dancing/ Can't blame people for freaking out really, yeah it could be classed art and could say to a degree its cultural but in this day and age it's in poor taste really. Her work in general is contraversial, is that her point with this? If it is, she's doing a good job. What ever happened to keeping kids innocent? Where has anyone's innocence been taken away from them? Re the bolded bit, I thought the whole point of art was to make us question things. I think you've just complimented her for her work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k4t0 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Ive seen a censored version of the picture, imo it is way too strong to be classed as anything you could call art and should not be on display to the public, and that was the censored version. Its probably done on purpose to cause controversy as artists like to do, but I think shes gone too far, I think the police should take action as the image is too strong and pornographic in nature, but of a thing you would expect a peado to have. No doubt you will get a few people trying to say its art if you look at it in the correct way, pure wronguns if they do, I cant see how it could be classed as art. I hope they chuck the book at Elton too, for buying and distributing innapropriatte images of children, which is what this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Ive seen a censored version of the picture, imo it is way too strong to be classed as anything you could call art and should not be on display to the public, and that was the censored version. Its probably done on purpose to cause controversy as artists like to do, but I think shes gone too far, I think the police should take action as the image is too strong and pornographic in nature, but of a thing you would expect a peado to have. No doubt you will get a few people trying to say its art if you look at it in the correct way, pure wronguns if they do, I cant see how it could be classed as art. I hope they chuck the book at Elton too, for buying and distributing innapropriatte images of children, which is what this is. What dark corner of my imagination am I not using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k4t0 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 well, it shows a small child lying spreadeagle and naked on the floor, the woman has took the picture classing it as art, all of her other work from what I understand is sexual in nature and it comes from a collection called the devils playground. Call me stupid but I somehow dont see the innocence in the picture that maybe I should, its disgusting. Imagine if that was your child, you certainly would not want that picture showing to the public, shes been exploited, its as simple as that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k4t0 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Sorry, forgot to add, its not even a good picture, theres nothing remotely good or artistic about it, if the girls were clothed it would be in a family album somewhere perhaps but I think most parenst would have a few issues showing it o their friends, let alone an art gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 well, it shows a small child lying spreadeagle and naked on the floor, the woman has took the picture classing it as art, all of her other work from what I understand is sexual in nature and it comes from a collection called the devils playground. Call me stupid but I somehow dont see the innocence in the picture that maybe I should, its disgusting. Imagine if that was your child, you certainly would not want that picture showing to the public, shes been exploited, its as simple as that I think that's be a fair point, as I do think that the artist is trying to use the kid to make a point. Do you not think the artist is saying something, though, about our reaction? Not being able to see a naked child without classing it as child porn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k4t0 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 well, it shows a small child lying spreadeagle and naked on the floor, the woman has took the picture classing it as art, all of her other work from what I understand is sexual in nature and it comes from a collection called the devils playground. Call me stupid but I somehow dont see the innocence in the picture that maybe I should, its disgusting. Imagine if that was your child, you certainly would not want that picture showing to the public, shes been exploited, its as simple as that I think that's be a fair point, as I do think that the artist is trying to use the kid to make a point. Do you not think the artist is saying something, though, about our reaction? Not being able to see a naked child without classing it as child porn? No, I cant see it I'm afraid, I think the fact you agree the child is exploited says the same, a picture of a naked four year old in a pose like you would expoect from razzle is'nt on, and it is inapropriatte, I cant see any defence of it as reasonable, its just not artistic, and I think it is a step too far for the art world, its a very dark image, go and take a look yourself, im sure you will agree it isnt art or vaguely interesting, other than the controversy its caused, I cant see her winning this one somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie 0 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Link if anyones interested http://hitsusa.com/blog/140/klara-and-edda-belly-dancing/ Can't blame people for freaking out really, yeah it could be classed art and could say to a degree its cultural but in this day and age it's in poor taste really. Her work in general is contraversial, is that her point with this? If it is, she's doing a good job. What ever happened to keeping kids innocent? Where has anyone's innocence been taken away from them? Re the bolded bit, I thought the whole point of art was to make us question things. I think you've just complimented her for her work. I was referring to the word 'pedophile' and the attention that this piece has attracted has indeed taken away the innocence of the subjects. And as to classing the snap as 'art' thats debatable. I like some of Nans work, it's raw, eye opening and tells it how it is, however, this piece is socially unacceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I was referring to the word 'pedophile' and the attention that this piece has attracted has indeed taken away the innocence of the subjects. And as to classing the snap as 'art' thats debatable. I like some of Nans work, it's raw, eye opening and tells it how it is, however, this piece is socially unacceptable I haven't really been following the story, so I wasn't aware how big it was/whether the subjects were actually aware of the story. I don't think there's really any debate that it is socially unacceptable, I was just questioning whether it should be. I've never really been into art, but everyone seems to be questioning whether this qualifies. Can someone tell me what defines art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14042 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Can someone tell me what defines art? Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'll just add it to my list of things that are "not a picture of two semi-naked children" and work from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now