The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Do you think nude art is harmful for kids to see?

Out of curiosity why didn’t you like the last one?

attachment.php


Firstly, it seems the sun is behind the figure, the cloth is raised and yet his torso brighter than it ought to be. I don't know... why his legs ought to be darker? Something about its lighting is wrong.

The colours are all clashing and the size of the figure doesn't seem to be placed in any kinda pleasing proportion to the rest of the pic.

Had the background been bigger (landscape rather than portrait), the figure smaller, and colours toned down, it would have been better, IMO.

But then I'm not an artist, my gut feeling is, the pic is wrong to my eyes. The nakedness of the subject doesn't bother me.
 
There is a wonderful dichotomy that exists when dealing with nudity in art.

When presented in the 'classical' tradition of Greek and Roman statues or religious themed paintings, nudity is generally non-controversial. It is only when it is presented out of this context or seemingly without a 'purpose' that people start to question it's necessity. (Incidentally, the 1st image which 'thatgirl' thought too risque is actually a Roman reproduction of a Greek sculpture of 'The Three Graces' which I believe is still on view in the Leon Levy and Shelby White Sculpture Court at the New York Metropolitan Museum).

Strangely, while nudity or partial nudity seems to be acceptable in religious imagery, it is religion itself that is the cause of the 'shame' that most people today feel about the naked form. It is taught to us as children and we teach it to our own children.

I only do full frontal drawings for commissions - simply because they don't sell on the normal market.

Personally, your mother and cousin need reminding that you don't go around to their houses to critique their decor and provide tips on interior design - so neither should they!
 
No, there is nothing harmful about the nude human body. The harm comes in when adults teaches kids that their bodies are something to which to be ashamed, sometimes associated with some type of religious teachings.

In addition, your cousin displayed typical double standard. It is OK to look at a nude female, but not OK to look at a nude male.
 
People need to stop whining

Everybody knows kids search for porn

And btw if they are okay with the females and not with male they are clearly homophobic
 
Firstly, it seems the sun is behind the figure, the cloth is raised and yet his torso brighter than it ought to be. I don't know... why his legs ought to be darker? Something about its lighting is wrong.

The colours are all clashing and the size of the figure doesn't seem to be placed in any kinda pleasing proportion to the rest of the pic.

Had the background been bigger (landscape rather than portrait), the figure smaller, and colours toned down, it would have been better, IMO.

But then I'm not an artist, my gut feeling is, the pic is wrong to my eyes. The nakedness of the subject doesn't bother me.


My bad. That is not the sun in the picture, just the reflection of the floor lamp in my place. Also the colors are off because of the flash on my camera.

Thanks for answering.


There is a wonderful dichotomy that exists when dealing with nudity in art.

When presented in the 'classical' tradition of Greek and Roman statues or religious themed paintings, nudity is generally non-controversial. It is only when it is presented out of this context or seemingly without a 'purpose' that people start to question it's necessity. (Incidentally, the 1st image which 'thatgirl' thought too risque is actually a Roman reproduction of a Greek sculpture of 'The Three Graces' which I believe is still on view in the Leon Levy and Shelby White Sculpture Court at the New York Metropolitan Museum).


I was wondering if anyone would know what it was of. The Three Graces is one of my favorites and I would like to see the original some day.


And btw if they are okay with the females and not with male they are clearly homophobic


I think more likely misandrist.
 
I can't understand why nude kids seeing art is so controversial.

Now, if they are making art like sculpting or using blow torches and

such, they should wear protective gear...paints are no problem, the

lead based ones are no longer available............
11.gif
 
...I was wondering if anyone would know what it was of. The Three Graces is one of my favorites and I would like to see the original some day...
There are numerous slightly different version in sculpture and in paint. The original - like the Venus de Milo - has limbs missing, so there are some versions of a 'repaired' rendering. :)
 
I don't seen anything wrong with your art Thynight. It's not as if you have Tom of Finland prints all over the wall. I could understand someone having issues with their kids being around anything that was so sexual.

I agree with doctorsun. North Americans are a twisted bunch in the way we view sex and violence in entertainment. We're just fine when it comes to blood and gore, but nudity and sex, (if allowed at all) is usually for the purpose of exploiting women. So even then, it's violent. From what I know, it's the exact opposite in Europe. You can have nudity and sex in TV and film, but violence gets much more scrutiny. I think that would be the healthier approach, both mentally and socially.
 
There are numerous slightly different version in sculpture and in paint. The original - like the Venus de Milo - has limbs missing, so there are some versions of a 'repaired' rendering. :)


I have seen some of the ones with limbs. I prefer those without though.
 
I see no problem at all with children seeing the naked body in art. It's not like you've got a running porn loop on a bunch of tv screens in your living room.

People have such an issue with the naked human body, yet don't even blink an eye at allowing children to watch movies where people get their random body parts shot off in a drug deal gone wrong.

Nudity is not in and of itself wrong or dirty in any way. If I had kids I'd much prefer them to receive a solid education in art - including the paints and sculptures that show nudity - then to have them spend all their time watching violence on tv.
 
Back
Top