19 replies to this topic

[Grizzly]

Hiroki Otsuka
Removved
James Roper


Takashi Murakami


Olafur Eliasson

Removed

Share.

[Seaner]

The last one makes me think of Event Horizon.

also ibtl

[Ender]

Removed
LOL?

[Tetiel]

What the fuck, Freak. What the fuck. You should know MUCH better than to post obvious pornography

[Valkyrja]

Is the first image supposed to be a representation of what 90% of males see when they look at a woman? XD
jkjk.

[sonic]

wow.
that link was disturbing.
I saw a chink stick a dick in another chinks mouth

[Nick]

What the fuck, Freak. What the fuck. You should know MUCH better than to post obvious pornography

Was it actual pornography or was it performance art that set off the American censorship bell?

I've been absolutely enthralled with a variety of photographers lately.

Sally Mann:
http://www.artnet.co...sally-mann.html
http://www.charliero.../interview/1722

David LaChapelle:
http://www.davidlach...e.com/home.html

James Nachtwey, Antonin Kratochvil, and all the photographers at VII:
http://www.viiphoto....otographer.html

[Frizzle]

Ha, you call that art freak.

[Nick]

Ha, you call that art freak.

Actually, it's arguable that everything is art.

[Grizzly]

What the fuck, Freak. What the fuck. You should know MUCH better than to post obvious pornography

It was actually art and I believe nudity is okay to post given that it's art, but ok you little prude. Murakami is obviously an artist not a pornographer (is that a word?). You might want to remove the first link given that it's links to pornography apparently lol. And um, why was the last one removed?

Ha, you call that art freak.

I think it's rather interesting art. It's a strike against Japanese pop culture. Hitaki focuses on the "unnatural nature of sexuality", while Murakami makes a message against Japanese culture after the bombing of Japan during WWII. Many of you might be too shallow to understand this form of art, but others obviously recognize it's value as the figure that Tetiel edited out sold for 15.2 million.

Was it actual pornography or was it performance art that set off the American censorship bell?

I've been absolutely enthralled with a variety of photographers lately.

Sally Mann:
http://www.artnet.co...sally-mann.html
http://www.charliero.../interview/1722

David LaChapelle:
http://www.davidlach...e.com/home.html

James Nachtwey, Antonin Kratochvil, and all the photographers at VII:
http://www.viiphoto....otographer.html

I think I saw Mann's work at the MOMA. Really intriguing and beautiful works.

wow.
that link was disturbing.
I saw a chink stick a dick in another chinks mouth

On a skateboard too. Almost as disturbing as the girl pissing on a guy's mouth hhahah

Edited by Freak, 15 December 2008 - 10:12 AM.

[Tetiel]

It's pornography and not suitable for this site if it's a man putting his penis in a woman's vagina. Obviously if the site says it's not suitable for minors, you cannot show it on this site.

[Grizzly]

It's pornography and not suitable for this site if it's a man putting his penis in a woman's vagina. Obviously if the site says it's not suitable for minors, you cannot show it on this site.

No, it's not OBVIOUSLY pornographic. Pornography indicates that you'd be using the medium for sexual pleasure. Yes, it's definitely graphic and erotic, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would use such paintings to jack off. If anythings his works are meant to disturb you in how graphic they are, not arouse you.

On the other hand, that artist actually used to make pornographic mangas. You can purchase such on his website, which is why it's not suitable for mintors and requires that you're 18 to enter.

And do recall that you also removed an image of a figure that was a naked man with a boner, which involved no vaginal intercourse.

The only thing obvious in this thread is how fucking prude some Americans can be

Edited by Freak, 15 December 2008 - 12:00 PM.

[Tetiel]

If deviantart would not allow it, I think it's a pretty good idea that this site wouldn't either. Deviantart wouldn't allow erect penises either. It's not being prude. It's obeying the law. You were showing the public and minors something that the law would be considered illegal and it is my job to remove it or else the site is at risk of being shut down.

[Grizzly]

If deviantart would not allow it, I think it's a pretty good idea that this site wouldn't either. Deviantart wouldn't allow erect penises either. It's not being prude. It's obeying the law. You were showing the public and minors something that the law would be considered illegal and it is my job to remove it or else the site is at risk of being shut down.

That second piece was displayed in several museums that children were allowed into. Displaying a picture like that or of any art is just as illegal as it is posting a picture of the statue of david and you know damn well there isn't a risk of posting the artwork of established artists that involve sexuality and eroticism.

I don't really give a rat's ass that you removed the picture. But next time don't curse and act like I'm being absolutely ridiculous, when at the least, the issue is debatable.

[Frizzle]

Actually, it's arguable that everything is art.

Well, not in my opinion. If I shit on the floor and rub it in a disabled person's face, is that art? Or let a dog starve to death, is that art? No.
And freak, monetary value does not dipict taste, take a gander at [Daminen] Hurst! That is not art nor worth the money it sells for.

True artists are bansky, Monet, Obey, Van Gogh, C3T, Diam and etc..

[Dan]

Yes, it's definitely graphic and erotic, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would use such paintings to jack off.

You underestimate them there americans.

[Apilot]

what about me im a good artist, let me be your favorite

[Grizzly]

Well, not in my opinion. If I shit on the floor and rub it in a disabled person's face, is that art? Or let a dog starve to death, is that art? No.
And freak, monetary value does not dipict taste, take a gander at [Daminen] Hurst! That is not art nor worth the money it sells for.

True artists are bansky, Monet, Obey, Van Gogh, C3T, Diam and etc..

Sure it can be. Won't be very good art nor appreciated, but by definition why not.

The artists you named are not "true" artists, they're classic artists, which have a different kind of appeal than modern art, but imo don't have much appeal as much to our generation other than for their rarity and history. There's more to art than the textbook artists you learned about in your 5th grade art class. Modern art takes on a very different form, often blurring the line between such things as pornography and art, low art and high art, etc.

I only bring up monetary value as it indicates the demand for art forms, just in case you thought I was the only weirdo that appreciated this kinda stuff

what about me im a good artist, let me be your favorite

nubcakes

Edited by Freak, 15 December 2008 - 10:28 PM.

[kneegrow_4_lyfe22]

yoo, mah main man method warryor is my favorite artist by far, he spits the best meng. he already coming out wit his second mixed tape yoo it;s siick