Anyone may call me what they want, but it wouldn't occur to me to have any kind of intervention if I were in front of an artistic nude photograph, painting andsculpture and there were any chidren present as well...
2007-12-07 20:57:52 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
nudity is not always sexual in nature. Donald duck has no pants on, but no one is crying out at Disney to do something about it.
2007-12-07 21:44:37 · answer #1 · answered by insignificant_other 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've always believed that children should be allowed to see nudity, in art as well as seeing real, live nude human beings. Nudity in itself isn't sexual, it is natural. If children saw more nudity in their earlier years they would better understand the differences in body types and not associate the typical toothpick model as the ideal. They would also see that everyone is the same underneath the clothes and that the cultural significance we give to our material objects isn't all that important.
I think children have a natural curiosity toward the human form and the differences between male and female. Unfortunately we do all we can to keep them from exploring that curiosity and that leads them to seek it out behind our backs. Very often that leads them to see the wrong things, which gives them a false sense of reality and leads to the perpetuation of both the exploitation of sex and the cultural taboo of nudity.
2007-12-11 17:05:42 · answer #2 · answered by spikeit 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
this is difficult - partly culturally specific and even era-specific. Uptight fundamentalists of all kinds dont even let adults see nudes. In my house we have a relaxed attitude to nudity in art but the children know what's gratuitous porn as well. its family-specific I think. Generally of course the artist is addressing his or her age peers / adults / when making art - children do not have the mind to understand the secondary intention and meaning of the art.
2007-12-08 05:08:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about Classical sculptures from, say historical Greece? Or Roman art? Or Hindu love-art?
The children could learn to appreciate the beauty of the human body, or learn about it in a detached, clinical way.
2007-12-08 05:01:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any artist would soon die through lack of income if he/she created art only for children. It is adults who buy art and 'appreciate' art so the subject matter really does not make much difference. Children will be exposed to the world they live in.
2007-12-08 05:08:24 · answer #5 · answered by CountTheDays 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's only addressed to adults unless it's a 10 year old boy, then it's addressed to Micheal Jackson.
2007-12-08 05:00:56 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Quackenbush 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I have a statue of two naked people hugging,
(not)porn made out of bronze, it is always art.
unless it is porn.
2007-12-08 05:02:09 · answer #7 · answered by bbrother68 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋