New find: Bare Breasted Female Statue Harms Minors.

[MysticSang'ha]

Silly boy...I said "bet", not "prove".
I hereby decree that "normal" is for guys to be aroused by loblollies, & any
culture where this doesn't happen is abnormal. There....issue settled.

Loblollies? :areyoucra

 

[Revoltingest]

Loblollies? :areyoucra

You know.....tatas, bazongas, torpedoes, melons, bongos, love muffins, peccaries, tomatoes, coconuts, blouse bunnies, Peking & Tokyo, ottomans, etc.

 

[Curious George]

You know.....tatas, bazongas, torpedoes, melons, bongos, love muffins, peccaries, tomatoes, coconuts, blouse bunnies, Peking & Tokyo, ottomans, etc.

Ottomans? you just made that one up!

 

[Falvlun]

So how many should it take to make such a decision, a third? A majority? 2/3? A quorum of some sort?"

However anything is decided in a town. Town meeting? Petitions? Put it on the ballot? By board members? I don't think it would need to be rocket science.

Which I assume is what you see as its focus. FYI, as explained in the video by a Chinese sulptor,

"the artist didn't want people to see her face, but look at some other part of the body. That it's meant to get people to acknowledge and appreciate different things about themselves. Wu says that's why the statue is headless. She's concentrated so much on her body it's as if her head doesn't even exist."
​

Of course you can dismiss the sculptor's intent and focus on its nudity alone, your privilege, but do you think it's a fair to judge someone else's intent by your perception?

To begin with, art is not, nor should be, constrained by the artist's intent or personal interpretation.

Though yes, I do believe that "shock value" was intended. It also appears to me that the breasts are the focal point, as they are the most realistic aspect of the sculpture, and they are framed by the shirt. To me, this sculpture doesn't say "reflect on your body". It says "look at my boobs".

Why and why not? And what's crude about it?

I find it crude due to my interpretation above-- that I find the display to be intentionally provocative, and that the nudity is the point of the art, rather than a part of it.

 

[Skwim]

To begin with, art is not, nor should be, constrained by the artist's intent or personal interpretation.

Not sure what you're referring to by "constrained."

Though yes, I do believe that "shock value" was intended. It also appears to me that the breasts are the focal point, as they are the most realistic aspect of the sculpture, and they are framed by the shirt. To me, this sculpture doesn't say "reflect on your body". It says "look at my boobs".

Okay.

I find it crude due to my interpretation above--

So why is focusing on boobs crude when focusing on other parts of the body are not. Or would they be crude as well? Or is it that focusing on anything that has to do with sex, crude?

that I find the display to be intentionally provocative, and that the nudity is the point of the art, rather than a part of it.

Hmmm, we're presented with a headless, disjointed body, and the most important aspect of the sculpture to you is its bare boobs, as in saying "look at my boobs." To each his own, but it seems your focus is a bit out of wack; as in , "Okay class, compared to the other sculptures you've seen, what is the most striking thing about this one?" Think they're going answer, "Her bare boobs"? I don't.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't take issue with the bare breasts of the statue and certainly don't think that the statue harms children.

But, I do have to question why this venue was chosen as a place for the statue. Though, I don't agree that the statue is going to destroy the minds of children - I do think that such a work of art might be better suited in a venue where people are going to see it as the artist intended.

Poor choice of venue, in my opinion. The selected audience isn't appreciating the art in the manner that the artist intended. As an artist, I'd find that counter productive. But, that's me.

 

[Sir Doom]

I don't take issue with the bare breasts of the statue and certainly don't think that the statue harms children.

But, I do have to question why this venue was chosen as a place for the statue. Though, I don't agree that the statue is going to destroy the minds of children - I do think that such a work of art might be better suited in a venue where people are going to see it as the artist intended.

Poor choice of venue, in my opinion. The selected audience isn't appreciating the art in the manner that the artist intended. As an artist, I'd find that counter productive. But, that's me.

I have to agree. The arboretum is supposed to be a celebration of the city's commitment to environmental and ecological issues. I have no idea how this piece fits into that motif.

 

[4consideration]

I don't take issue with the bare breasts of the statue and certainly don't think that the statue harms children.

But, I do have to question why this venue was chosen as a place for the statue. Though, I don't agree that the statue is going to destroy the minds of children - I do think that such a work of art might be better suited in a venue where people are going to see it as the artist intended.

Poor choice of venue, in my opinion. The selected audience isn't appreciating the art in the manner that the artist intended. As an artist, I'd find that counter productive. But, that's me.

I agree, too.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have to agree. The arboretum is supposed to be a celebration of the city's commitment to environmental and ecological issues. I have no idea how this piece fits into that motif.

Actually ecofeminism is often included today under ecological issues.

In a prior post someone noted something that the creator said about why she had no head.

This made me think he/she is saying that the woman portrayed in the statue has bought into patriarchal hype (often harmful to the environment.) She has become so concerned over her body parts - she has lost her head (brain.)

And obviously people looking at her have also lost their heads over her body parts.

*

 

[Revoltingest]

Ottomans? you just made that one up!

No, I just checked...it's even in urbandictionary.com.
But it is a funny name for peaches, eh?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

so has this statue killed any children yet? OR at least been responsible for a rapid increase in public masturbation?

 

[psychoslice]

so has this statue killed any children yet? OR at least been responsible for a rapid increase in public masturbation?

He he, that so funny.

 

[Skwim]

I don't take issue with the bare breasts of the statue and certainly don't think that the statue harms children.

But, I do have to question why this venue was chosen as a place for the statue. Though, I don't agree that the statue is going to destroy the minds of children - I do think that such a work of art might be better suited in a venue where people are going to see it as the artist intended.

Poor choice of venue, in my opinion. The selected audience isn't appreciating the art in the manner that the artist intended. As an artist, I'd find that counter productive. But, that's me.

 

[metis]

Someone asked for the "nipple guard" reference and ABC:

“Modern Family” star Julie Bowen stopped by "Anderson" on Wednesday, where she and Anderson Cooper reminisced about her Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Emmys acceptance speech in which she mentioned nipple covers no less than three times. In honor of her speech, Cooper presented Bowen with an appropriate gift.

"We actually got you 'Anderson Live' nipple covers ... it's a first for us," Cooper said, handing them over to Bowen. "I'm proud, thank you," Bowen gushed.

Bowen's 'nipple covers' speech started some internet controversy when Deadline.com editor Nikki Finke critiqued the speech, using it to make a point that, "Beautiful actresses are not funny. They don’t know how to do comedy."

But whether the speech is remembered as cringe-worthy or memorable, at least Bowen got a few free nipple covers out of the deal. -- Anderson Cooper Gives Julie Bowen Nipple Covers To Commemorate Her Emmys Speech (VIDEO)

 

[metis]

At another website, I wrote this rant several months ago:

During one of the awards ceremonies last winter, the female lead in the sitcom "Modern Family", when accepting her award threw some sarcastic jabs at ABC's "nipple guards", and the audience laughed quite loudly. Now, I don't know about you, but I feel bad when everyone is laughing at a joke and I'm just sitting there trying to figure out how I missed the punch line. So, I looked it up. It turns out that ABC doesn't want nipple bulges showing, so they require "nipple guards". Seriously-- I ain't joking.

OK, about a month or so ago, I watched an episode of "Scandal" whereas a man was tortured, including a finger being cut off, laying there in a pool of blood. It was a very brutal scene.

OK, now the way I take this is that the execs at ABC feel that bulging nipples are really disturbing but torture is quite OK.

 

[Willamena]

What an ironic piece! Diminishing a woman to her various "parts" and then objectifying her. We find the statue "ugly" because of this. Objectification is ugly! And, more ironically, for a "morality" group to focus on one aspect of the piece further objectifies -- not only the statue, but womanhood.

It's funny you see that, because what I see in the art speaks against just that.

But it's still ugly.

 

[Revoltingest]

But it's still ugly.

True dat.
But at least we get to see some bazongas.

 

[Muffled]

What if there is nothing to be "drummed out"? Has it not occurred to you that most of the reason that there even exists such fascinations with certain areas of the body is precisely because they are kept so covered and taboo? They are made into "naughty" parts and insinuated into being something more than they need be from early on. It is exactly this repression of expression, this attitude of "dress modestly" that actually encourages this idea that the body, and certain parts of it, is a dirty sexual thing. That upon uncovering it, it leads to moral decay and sexual transgressions of all sorts. If, on the other hand, a culture is inoculated against this line of thinking by not being ashamed of the body, by not having the restrictions of having to cover up certain areas and make them into "naughty parts", then they no longer become areas to be sexualized. The allure has been removed.

I have no evidence that this state exists in the majority of persons. Maybe a person could be asexual but I suspect that is just as perverted a state as being homosexual.

I don't believe that affects me in any way but I have no experience or knowledge of how others view it.

I didn't do things because they were naughty. I hid what I did because it was viewed as naughty.

Sexual desire is reality. Encouraging illicit sexual desire leads to sin and therefore modesty is in order to prevent that as much as possible.

i don't believe this happens.

 

[Muffled]

Well, I don't understand why women get all hot & bothered over naked manly parts.
We're each affected in our own way.

Of course one could say it is only used for eliminating fluid waste but somehow I suspect people know it has another use.