Society decays for any number of reasons. Poverty is the worst. I think perhaps, nudity in society is not a cause but an effect of other problems. Julius Ceasar said that "Poverty is the mother of all crime." Poverty fosters immorality. Decay stems from poverty not from nudity. To think that society will be destroyed because of nudity, is absurd, narrow-minded, even ignorant.
-el gringo -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) The problem I see with this whole thing is this... 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards change? 3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and desires. 5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three >shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:02:48 -0400 > >I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the Last >Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. Perhaps it >speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps it speaks to >the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the world. Like most >art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is offended by art, whether >it be good art or bad art. I believe that art is usually too vague to take >that personally. >Paul > >On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: > >>In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who >>is >>my Father and my best friend. >> >>Regards, >>Bob... >> >>From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>>>It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the >>>>nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my >>>>parents, or perhaps my best friend. >>>> >>>>In fact, it was. >>> >>>Please explain. >> >
