Comments on: ART OFFENSIVE

By: bob

bob — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:10:42 +0000

wasn’t it her chioce and isn’t it metiforicle for what guys look for. Young make up-ed girls, teens not 10 yr olds, to ” do the birds and bees”

By: Megs

Megs — Sun, 30 May 2010 18:55:25 +0000

If I want naked children, there are plenty of naked statues all over my city. No one complains, even though they are completely life-like.
I agree with Fabio though, the makeup is in excess.

By: Luis

Luis — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:46:57 +0000

Controlar lo que los demás piensan es imposible y el arte si no es libre no es arte. Lo único deseable y honesto es explorar el arte que nos gusta y aquellas expresiones artísticas que no nos atraen dejemoselas a los demás. Prohibir una imagen es ridículo.

By: jUSTSOMEGUY

jUSTSOMEGUY — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:55:53 +0000

i THINK… She just needs a good spanking!!!

By: neil

neil — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:14:33 +0000

It’s a difficult image because it is shows a 10 year old girl in a naked adult pose, which proposes that the viewer see her sexually. That in itself is disturbing. But we know the child here is Brooke Shields, and in looking at the image we comprehend her as the fully sexualised adult we know her to be. Prince capitalises on this. Good in one way, disturbing in another.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:49:14 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly with Fabio. Art imitates life. If the viewer is offended, that’s totally about the viewer. To censor art is to censor life, and life happens, whether you sit in judgment of it or not.

By: Fabio

Fabio — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:02:38 +0000

I can’t agree. Nudity is not obscene ‘per se’, even if the subject is a children. The most obscene thing I see in this picture is the heavy makeup, which makes adults perceive the nudity as a sexual provocation. A nakedness is a natural status, the perversion about this is all in whatcher’s eyes.

By: Wilma Wonka

Wilma Wonka — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:41:31 +0000

While a beautiful photo, I don’t see the point. The only reason one would take a photo of this nature i.e., makeup, nude, child, is for child pornography. It really doesn’t matter if you dress it up and call it art, it is what it is; child pornography.
There’s a reason the art museum removed it.

By: meg ferguson

meg ferguson — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:28:46 +0000

I think this picture is absolutely disgraceful! its disgusting to even think about putting a naked 10 year old girl in an art gallery for everyone to see! there are people out there that may enjoy this picture but if they do they are sick in the head! this is not art! it is child pornography! it is without a doubt absolutely revolting!