Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Its not like he did any angry beaver shots...
A) If you`re REALLY such a perv that you wanna take this completely out of context JUST for the sake of seeing nipples, the vid isn`t censored.
B) In the vid, it shows that he didn`t just do naked paintings. He did multiple painting in which she was fully clothed, and still beautiful, actually, which goes to show that he didn`t just wanna see her naked.
Honestly, that woman is BEAUTIFUL, and she could easily be a model if she wanted to be, so it makes sense that someone would want to use her in artwork.
The fact that it`s her father only means that she knows him better than some random "artist" on the street.
Also, these are amazing paintings. he`s very good.
That being said, why did he choose his kid? Like he must think she looks better naked if he chose to paint her that way, right? Thats pretty sick...
Any other person posing as nude or any other person paintint -- totally chill. But there`s just something odd when a daughter is willing to pose nude for her father and the father is willing to paint it.
I`ve painted nude before. Eventually the person becomes more like any other still life object. If it was someone that traditional values say you don`t want to see naked, then there would be a wall blocking me from capturing that art, I think.
I accidently signed up at my school to be a nude model. As soon as one of the art students mentioned it was like "Oh damn. no unsign me up!" I would die of embarrassment.
Her father`s an artist. Different context. He was looking for an image of classical beauty in his cultural context (to fit the goddess theme). She fit the bill. From an artistic point of view, it`s flattering.
Cost might have been an issue too.
It was a themed series of paintings. It can`t be all his paintings - do you think he just picked up a brush and had that degree of technical competence straight away?
And honestly, art folks are strange. I doubt he was thinking "Oh yeah, I get to see my daughter naked!" He just wanted to capture her beauty.
I don`t see anything wrong with this. No one would be bitching if it weren`t her father that painted these.
stupid brain running too fast for the fingers to keep up >.<
If that makes sense >.>
I seriously doubt something like that could be pulled off with photography. Don`t get me wrong, I know where you are coming from. Example; in Australia earlier this year (i think) a guy photographic nude 12 yr old kids for art yet everyone baulked because it was deemed too pornographic to be called art.
These paintings are not like that at all. I can put a link up if you want. I think it might even be on here...
It wasn`t all his pictures, it was a serie.
I really don`t see what people are upset about.
You mean no one else except for EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has commented on that!
the article`s author says that he`d only be okay with that thing if she was before puberty. tits don`t make it bad or even wrong. it makes it better.
no one else think thats drated up
It feels like you can`t go one day without someone moaning in the news about being offended by something that really doesn`t matter at all.
"I will support Li if her ( I think they meant he) daughter is still a kid, but if she is an adult or teenager I don`t buy his idea"
Wouldn`t it be creepier if he was painting nude poses of his kid?
I have more of a problem with what the Critic said:
"I will support Li if her daughter is still a kid but if she is an adult or teenager, I don`t buy his idea; maybe I don`t know art, I just know what is moral..."
So..it`s okay if she is an under age child, too young to understand? no, if she`s painted nude with flowers, in a calendar. It`s to cute to matter if its consensual.
the author actually states that it would have been more moral if the girl was younger...
Still think it`s normal? I didn`t think so."
No, it`s not "normal" but there is nothing wrong with it.
The paintings are beautiful, and so is the woman. I can see why he would want her to be his model, even if she was his daughter.
Basically, what it comes down to, is while the artist and model were think just that, "artist and model," the rest of the world seems to be hung up on this idea that since the daughter was naked in the same room as the father, then there was something incestuous going on.
BTW, I don`t think English is the author`s native language guys... Cut him a little slack...
Still think it`s normal? I didn`t think so.
plus, it`s a different culture.
and the paintings are pretty aweseome
On a site note the paintings are freaking horrible. Good technique but no taste what so ever.
Why is the fact that morals are relative such a hard concept to grasp for some people?
This is OK because:1. They asked the daughter if she WANTED to, she wasn`t forced. And she agreed. So did the mother.2. They are not sexual paintings in any ways. nudity as an art form represents a existence beyond time or culture, because any outfit that a subject has always represents at the very least a specific time period, if not a class or culture.3. His paintings kick butt. He is obviously a professional, and heck, who knows, maybe his daughter may get a good start as a model if she ever wanted to because of this.
It used to be considered more disrepectable to pose nude for an artist than to be a prostitute.
If it is, then I could see why some would be turned off because it evokes a notion of incest.
I would venture the opinion, however, that nakedness can be non-sexual. This seems to be an example of that.
So, as a result of this thesis, what does it mean that people inherently associate nakedness with sex?
If you like the style of these paintings, you`ll LOVE this: http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Mens-Thre...
The fact this was posted here at all just serves to show how uptight and twisted some people`s views of nudity and sex are.
On a side note, my mother used to decorate my sister`s completely nude body with calligraphed letters and record it on video as some kind of fusion of body -and performance art.
*runs away, giggling madly*
The issue is that society has brainwashed us all into thinking that nudity is always sexual. Guess what, it`s not. Nudity is just a lack of clothing. Whoopee.
I would feel sorry if any of the "censor-ists" ever had to go to an undeveloped country. What would they do, try and throw blankets over everyone and their children?
DO YOU KNOW HOW COLD IT GETS UP HERE IN CHICAGO!? Jesus, man...
On a more serious note, I think censorship is silly. Nudity =/= sex. I always walk around my apartment without pants. PANTS ARE RESTRICTING! IT`S THE CLOTHING REPRESENTATION OF THE MAN BRINGING US DOWN, MAN!
That wasn`t a very serious note, was it?
Why not? The two aren`t mutually exclusive.
On a side note - he`s a good artist and she`s a good model for the role of classically perfect womanly beauty in that part of the world.
It`s a body. You see it every day. Get over it.[/quote]
I think it`s worse than censoring everything, because it`s selective censorship. The message rammed into everyone is extremely clear - sex is far, far worse than violence. Even simple nudity is worse than moderate violence, apparently, and I`m sure everyone remembers the GTA Hot Coffee fiasco. Assaulting people just to steal their car, OK. Beating people to death with a club to steal their money, OK. Running people over deliberately just for laughs, OK. Sex? OMG OMG OMG! BAN IT NOW!
I think it`s a very wrong message.
On a related notice, she is very pretty.
It`s a body. You see it every day. Get over it.
I personally think they are beautiful paintings.
There is a a woman in each of those paintings.
The reality is completely different to the statement in the subject header, so the question is irrelevant.