Watch Classic Paintings Come To Life

[Kenbro Utu]

---

A3123 wrote:

There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. 

---

The medical community would disagree with you.  Such images are used for teaching/documentation all the time.  So there is at least one acceptable reason.  

[A3123]

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

---

A3123 wrote:

There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. 

---

The medical community would disagree with you.  Such images are used for teaching/documentation all the time.  So there is at least one acceptable reason.  

---

Good one. 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

If you are unable to see the metaphorical pure innocence and vulnerability in the picture of a naked child, you should simply stay away from any forum thread about art. Or visual art altogether.

Now if someone had their own naked child photographed or painted and put the image on the internet or in a museum or any public place for that matter while the child was still alive, I would be creeped out myself. But a 17th century fictional child (even if a real child might have modeled for it)?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

If you are unable to see the metaphorical pure innocence and vulnerability in the picture of a naked child, you should simply stay away from any forum thread about art. Or visual art altogether.

Now if someone had their own naked child photographed or painted and put the image on the internet or in a museum or any public place for that matter while the child was still alive, I would be creeped out myself. But a 17th century fictional child (even if a real child might have modeled for it)?

---

I guess A3123 needs to stay out of Art Mueums or at least be very careful if he goes in one.

Whether or not he has any reasons for his opinion (he still has not stated any) he is entitled to it.

/me shrugs

[A3123]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

If you are unable to see the metaphorical

pure innocence and vulnerability in the picture of a naked child

, you should simply stay away from any forum thread about art. Or visual art altogether.

Now if someone had their own naked child photographed or painted and put the image on the internet or in a museum or any public place for that matter while the child was still alive, I would be creeped out myself. But a 17th century fictional child (even if a real child might have modeled for it)?

---

The innocence and vulnerability of a naked child should not be portrayed as art. Whether the child is from the 17th or the 21st century makes no difference. A child is a child regardless of which era they were born in.

[Perrie Juran]

---

A3123 wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

If you are unable to see the metaphorical

pure innocence and vulnerability in the picture of a naked child

, you should simply stay away from any forum thread about art. Or visual art altogether.

Now if someone had their own naked child photographed or painted and put the image on the internet or in a museum or any public place for that matter while the child was still alive, I would be creeped out myself. But a 17th century fictional child (even if a real child might have modeled for it)?

---

The innocence and vulnerability of a naked child should not be portrayed as art. Whether the child is from the 17th or the 21st century makes no difference. A child is a child regardless of which era they were born in.

---

You still have not given us a reason WHY?

[Studio09]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

A3123 wrote:

The innocence and vulnerability of a naked child should not be portrayed as art. Whether the child is from the 17th or the 21st century makes no difference. A child is a child regardless of which era they were born in.

---

You still have not given us a reason WHY?

---

One reason is the same one for the statutory rape law. Many children are easily influenced to do things that are not in their best interests or is against what they want or how they feel.  Some children may have a drive to be in the spotlight but some are pushed by their parents to have their beauty and/or talent exploited.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Studio09 wrote:

One reason is the same one for the statutory rape law. Many children are easily influenced to do things that are not in their best interests or is against what they want or how they feel.  Some children may have a drive to be in the spotlight but some are pushed by their parents to have their beauty and/or talent exploited.

 

---

Didn't you read my comment about the images being "public"? I can't even begin to imagine how a painting of a naked child, displayed hundreds of years after the child's death (again if the child is a real person in the first place) can be harmful for this child in the same way as when it would be raped.

It looks like you missed the most important thing I said so I'll rephrase it: the child is not portrayed, innocence is, in the form of a child. You could replace the child with a lamb, like in Perrie's picture, but that immediately gives the picture a religious undertone. (edited a bit in this last sentence)

Come up with a better agrument please, this is complete nonsense.

I am potrayed naked numerous times and have the photo albums from my early childhood to prove it. They are fun to watch occasionally  if you ask me. They simply show me taking a bath or playing on the beach, no suggestive or compromising poses, just a happy child playing. So am I a self rapist? Should I burn those pictures? Should I prepare a lawsuit against my parents? Should I prepare a defence for a lawsuit against me? I wouldn't want those pictures being displayed all over the internet, just like I wouldn't want all my other pictures, whether from childhood or not and whether with me being dressed or not being displayed. It's just a matter of privacy. Now if someone finds those pictures after I am gone and has some valid reason to display them, that would be fine.

[Studio09]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Studio09 wrote:

One reason is the same one for the statutory rape law. Many children are easily influenced to do things that are not in their best interests or is against what they want or how they feel.  Some children may have a drive to be in the spotlight but some are pushed by their parents to have their beauty and/or talent exploited.

 

---

... I can't even begin to imagine how a painting of a naked child, displayed hundreds of years after the child's death (again if the child is a real person in the first place) can be harmful for this child in the same way as when it would be raped.

...

Come up with a better agrument please, this is complete nonsense.

...

---

Yes this is complete nonsense and not what I said.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

It looked like you suggested it, I'm glad we agree on it being nonsense.

That wasn't what I meant though. I meant was: how could it be possibly be harmful in the scenario I gave?

[Studio09]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

...I meant was:

how could it be possibly be harmful

in the scenario I gave?

---

Any harm that may have occurred happened hundreds of years ago.  If you are wanting my OK to appreciate the paintings now, I have no problem with that.  I even appreciate listening to Jackson 5 songs now even though I have no doubt that Michael would have had a happier life if he had been allowed to have a childhood instead of being pushed into being the bread winner of his family at such an early age.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Studio09 wrote:

Any harm that may have occurred happened hundreds of years ago.

---

And what possible harm could that have been?

[Pamela Galli]

The same harm experienced by all those babies whose pictures were taken in the bathtub with their rubber duckies.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Studio09 wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

A3123 wrote:

The innocence and vulnerability of a naked child should not be portrayed as art. Whether the child is from the 17th or the 21st century makes no difference. A child is a child regardless of which era they were born in.

---

You still have not given us a reason WHY?

---

One reason is the same one for the statutory rape law. Many children are easily influenced to do things that are not in their best interests or is against what they want or how they feel.  Some children may have a drive to be in the spotlight but some are pushed by their parents to have their beauty and/or talent exploited.

 

---

Certainly driving a child to do something where they are exploited is wrong.

But the statement we are dealing with here is:

"The innocence and vulnerability of a naked child should not be portrayed as art."

A capable artist wouldn't even need a model.  He or she could paint a nude child from their imagination.

So this is a weak argument here.

 

 

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

If there's an argument to be had here (for me), I think it's that the animator's misinterpretation of the original art leaves room for mis-criticism. It's important to separate the misinterpretation from the original art. As I see it, the animator is both ignorant of the art, and perhaps a bit immature.

I agree that the innocence and vulnerability of children is fair game for art, and I'm thankful art tackles it. Art needn't be beautiful, nor non-confrontational. Its job is too important for that.

[A3123]

That an artist could paint a nude child from their imagination is just as disturbing as the rest of this thread.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

A3123 wrote:

That an artist could paint a nude child from their imagination is just as disturbing as the rest of this thread.

---

You want disturbing? Imagine an artist painting you painting a nude child. The only thing preventing this from actually happening is my inability to paint.

The imagination is a wonderful thing, ain't it? Fortunately, I do have the ability to paint there.

;-)

[Perrie Juran]

---

A3123 wrote:

That an artist could paint a nude child from their imagination is just as disturbing as the rest of this thread.

---

And again, you still have not answered the question, "Why is it wrong, or as you stated in this post, "disturbing?"

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

If there's an argument to be had here (for me), I think it's that the animator's misinterpretation of the original art leaves room for mis-criticism. It's important to separate the misinterpretation from the original art. As I see it, the animator is both ignorant of the art, and perhaps a bit immature.

<snip>

---

I understand your objection to his (possible) misinterpretation.  I myself was not fully familiar with all the works he used.  Assuming that we knew what the artist meant to portray I'd tend to agree it would be wrong to change that.

But not knowing the story behind each of the paintings I found what he did to be both very interesting and even beautiful.  I'd not seen anyone do this before. 

I also can understand your apprehensions about not touching someone elses work.  I feel this way sometimes with music or movies when people do covers or remakes.   But not all covers or remakes are bad.  Sometimes they really are better.

My take on what he did is that it also has the potential to get people to take a closer work at what the original artist did and has the potential to 'bring to life' the work in a deeper way.  I see nothing wrong with this.  ETA, I think this could even be a good thing.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I don't have a problem with people enjoying misinterpretation, I do it. We all have finite bandwidth, so Ignorance is unavoidable. I'm evidence of and in agreement with your belief that reinterpretation can bring attention to the original art.

I think you really have seen this done before, but usually as parody. I'm a big fan of parody, which is often very well informed. I caused a stir in my college art history class by doctoring the professor's slide presentations with altered images of the originals. Surely this will not surprise anyone who's watched me here. In what may have been the most magnificent display of hypocrisy I saw from an academic outside the theology department, the feminist professor eliminated any possibility I might have been the perpetrator of such a "boyish" prank.

I love music, and I often do "cover runs" on a music themed feed thread I share with friends. It's interesting to follow the evolution of a song through the decades, just as I found it interesting to tease out the animator's bias in his reinterpretion of the classics. It was that analysis that lead me to believe his effort was sophomoric.

That said, I'll remind you that I'm a frosh.

;-)

[A3123]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

A3123 wrote:

That an artist could paint a nude child from their imagination is just as disturbing as the rest of this thread.

---

And again, you still have not answered the question, "Why is it wrong, or as you stated in this post, "disturbing?"

 

---

It saddens me, although it does not surprise me, that an answer has to be stated to the question, "Why is it wrong or disturbing to view or depict naked children." (Other than as medical aids or fields of that nature). 

What is my answer? If I were to truly take the time to write the volumes of words to which that answer would require, I fear that it would be a complete waste of time, for those whom need it explained to them will never understand and those that do understand would never need it explained to them.

The depiction of nude children, whether alive or dead, whether real or imagined, is wrong simply because it is.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

The same harm experienced by all those babies whose pictures were taken in the bathtub with their rubber duckies.

---

Apart from the rubber duck, I fall into that category as I said before. No harm experienced yet.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

If there's an argument to be had here (for me), I think it's that the animator's misinterpretation of the original art leaves room for mis-criticism. It's important to separate the misinterpretation from the original art. As I see it, the animator is both ignorant of the art, and perhaps a bit immature.

---

Those are exactly my thoughts. I have never heard about or thought of nude children in paintings as some sort of disturbance, not until this thread appeared.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

A3123 wrote:

The depiction of nude children, whether alive or dead, whether real or imagined, is wrong simply because it is.

---

I'm beginning to feel like a TED shill, but once again I find Stuart Brown's treatise on "play" to contain idea of relevance to this discussion.

A3123, I invite you to elaborate on the image of the nude child at 4:45 in this video. I am curious to know if you find something wrong with it.

I'm also curious to hear your opinion of the image at 7:37. Stuart Brown's commentary is spot on, acknowledging that context is key to understanding. Some sophistication may be required to understand that image, but certainly not more than the audience possesses.

And I think Brown's comparison of the New York Times' cover, and Pieter Bruegel's "Children's Games" (1560) from 0:20 to 1:20 is brilliant. I think we have lost something in our culture.

There are people who will associate images of naked children with sexuality, and many more who will associate images of clothed children with sexuality. The hypersexualization of young girls almost requires clothing, doesn't it?

[Zenephobe]

Before I view your video and answer your questions, I must ask, what are the reasons humans of any sex do anything? Is it not true that males strive to be successful in order to mate? Is it not true that females strive to be attractive to attract a mate? There are exceptions, of course, but if you recognize human nature for what it is, what can be the explanation for depicting nude children as art?