Curse

Terrokian · Jun 03, 2008, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante the Warlord

Hey now, that last paragraph is a pretty radical stance... I respect you opinion, but to say something like that is well pretty stupid.. First off i agree that the picture of the guy and girl is sexual, but they are wearing clothes, barely though, and ive seen kids in high school doing that, if not worse. So do you mind explaining to me why that is wrong? Its no worse then what you see at the beach, plenty of young girls and their boyfriends making out holding each other like that. I mean i don't think they are right for doing that, but its what they do.. Now i have the right to say this because i AM a teenager, not 13, but i am. I know the stuff we do and i don't condone it. Girls were trying to be "sexy" at that age even in middle school, they used to wear short skirts and prance around. Now i completely hate that our society is developing like that, but its what its become. Maybe i am on a different page, i live in a completely different place most likely (eastern US).

These are not high schoolers.They are 13.Barely dressed and engaged in an physically suggestive pose.You say you've been to beaches in America where you saw 13 year olds doing this on the beach in public.And no one had nothing to say?I agree that girls don't need to be practicing at being sexy at 13 like you describe.But you stated they are clothed.In the one pic I stated where she was trying to be sexy SHE WAS NOT CLOTHED.Huge difference to me.

High schoolers are generally 15+(mainly 16+).They have a couple years on our model/s.And yes I remember it being the same at my high school.Adults are not hatched being old.They too have been through this.I saw kids sucking face that would have made a porn star proud.Still does not excuse a couple 13 year olds being barely dressed,nor my fellow high schoolers engaging in this.Also while I was in high school,I do not recall anyone in the halls being barely dressed while doing this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante the Warlord

Now I don't know about you, but ive seen worse things. Theres lots of sex and drama everyday when you click on the television. Some kids in my high school watched a rape scene, in a spanish video...put in by the teacher... Movies everyday have sexual innuendos. As i stated its not so black and white and anyone with a radical comment should think again. It could be argued either way, but lets not say that its porn or its completely legal and beautiful.

We had a couple AV department kids bring in a lesbo porn.Thing was someone said something.They got busted.Problem you(not specifically you)have is someone should have said something.Rape is not entertainment.And having some kids view this is not right on many levels.

Unfortunately SEX SELLS.This is a truism we cannot escape.The good looking and sexy are rewarded,whereas the ugly are not.Be this as it may be does not mean we should condone this with 13 year old children.We should not condone someone displaying a 13 year old girl naked as sexy.I will go hunt down some very similar hair tossing hips out model poses of adult women who are conotating this "sexiness" which are nigh on exactly the way this child is posing.

When children become sexy,when do we draw a line on being sexually attracted to them?Is this not the key point on sexiness?To be sexually attractive?So that others WANT to have sex with you?How far past that line can one go?Is there a "safe area" in which to be sexually attracted to a child?Should a sexy naked child be permissible?This is this "grey area" so many are referring to.

Like I stated.A couple pics I was very borderline about.But the last couple were easily meant as they were portrayed.Child porn.Child sexiness.Children engaged in poses they were not meant to be in to begin with.And an adult did this and he has a few adults trying to defend him.To me this is wrong on multiple levels.

Dante the Warlord · Jun 03, 2008, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

These are not high schoolers.They are 13.Barely dressed and engaged in an physically suggestive pose.You say you've been to beaches in America where you saw 13 year olds doing this on the beach in public.And no one had nothing to say?I agree that girls don't need to be practicing at being sexy at 13 like you describe.But you stated they are clothed.In the one pic I stated where she was trying to be sexy SHE WAS NOT CLOTHED.Huge difference to me.

High schoolers are generally 15+(mainly 16+).They have a couple years on our model/s.And yes I remember it being the same at my high school.Adults are not hatched being old.They too have been through this.I saw kids sucking face that would have made a porn star proud.Still does not excuse a couple 13 year olds being barely dressed,nor my fellow high schoolers engaging in this.Also while I was in high school,I do not recall anyone in the halls being barely dressed while doing this.

Well ive seen high schoolers kissing a lot. And just to point it out freshmen in high school are 14-15, sophmores 15-16, juniors 16-17, and senior 17-18. Now i know that its still a little off (by a year) but there are still a lot of girls in that age who do this. Ive also seen high school kids all over each other. Some of those are my friends, who make me feel akward whenever im near them.

Quote:

We had a couple AV department kids bring in a lesbo porn.Thing was someone said something.They got busted.Problem you(not specifically you)have is someone should have said something.Rape is not entertainment.And having some kids view this is not right on many levels.

I agree, but please don't call us kids. Honestly we aren't grown up, but we are old enough to make decisions, as minimal as they are. I wasn't in the class, but a lot of the people in the class were VERY disgusted... Im not sure how much they saw, but it was disturbing that a teacher would knowingly do that.
But the kids at my school are old enough to understand (on top of that it was a junior/senior class, meaning they were 17-18, possibly some 16)

Quote:

Unfortunately SEX SELLS.This is a truism we cannot escape.The good looking and sexy are rewarded,whereas the ugly are not.Be this as it may be does not mean we should condone this with 13 year old children.We should not condone someone displaying a 13 year old girl naked as sexy.I will go hunt down some very similar hair tossing hips out model poses of adult women who are conotating this "sexiness" which are nigh on exactly the way this child is posing.

I agree, i hate that a lot of teenagers grow up in such a sex prone world, but it seems that the world is leaning that way and getting worse as time goes.

Quote:

Like I stated.A couple pics I was very borderline about.But the last couple were easily meant as they were portrayed.Child porn.Child sexiness.Children engaged in poses they were not meant to be in to begin with.And an adult did this and he has a few adults trying to defend him.To me this is wrong on multiple levels.

Well, if you look at places like facebook and such you will see many girls with a "sexual" pose as the photo states taken by themselves with their boyfriends. If so, its just a crudely taken picture of the same thing that a professional like Bill Henson took. Its not unheard of and its very common in fact.

Now obviously getting a pic taken by an adult is different from the innocent playfulness of a teenage girl with her boyfriend, but i believe that Henson may be trying to communicate something professionally about that. I feel its sexual, but not porn. Thats a bit far to say... Unless Bill Henson was forcing the two to do it and was being like a pedophile, i would say its not porn. Its average teenage stuff...

Now i can argue around, but it is what it is... I think the best thing to do is to wait for what Henson has to say (no links about anything he has to say thus far), but he has to defend himself first before any criticizing comments are made on him

Terrokian · Jun 03, 2008, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Well unfortunately he did have to pose them in order to get the shot.Therein lies the guilt.He "made"(well he didn't whip or punish or force)them pose like that.And he cannot escape that the couple of poses he chose were simply out of line.

I can imagine at first,people looked at these and made no judgment.When a gallery has an opening night only the most prestigious of people are invited.After all it is not only an exhibition of one's art,but a SALE also.Why invite the poor?And typical rich person honestly doesn't think about things as do others.

Now your first night goes well enough as does your second and so forth.Soon enough all sorts of people come in after a week or so and this is where things went downhill.

Your average person is not viewing these as art.And regardless of his intentions he took a couple pictures that are not art.In most countries they are child porn.

There was no "boundary" to push.No new view on things.He took most of these pictures years ago and only now shared them.

So how come 10+ years ago these weren't art?Same reason they are not art now.Back then though he would be lucky not to be hanged.Nowadays he'll get some joke sentence(average child porn collector gets 1-5 and is out in under 2).

Were his models damaged?None can say with complete certainty.We can't find and speak with them all.And most are now legal adults.Some ignored it and survived.

Does he have more similar pictures?Running bets are he does.Guess we will find out soon enough.

credit · Jun 03, 2008, 03:33 AM // 03:33

arcanemacabre · Jun 03, 2008, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by credit

(pic)

^ Truth.

pamelf · Jun 03, 2008, 05:29 AM // 05:29

Once again, people are missing the point of what the exhibition is about. Please, to make any kind of educated comment on this issue you all need to actually EDUCATE yourselves on what the exhibition is trying to say and judge it in that context. If then you don't like it that's a different issue all together. But simply stating "OMGz0rs KiddIe Pr0nz!" is certainly not helping any kind of intelligent discussion on the subject.

Btw Terrokian, stating that children are not sexual beings is completely naive and ridiculous. People are born sexual. Toddlers play with themselves and have to be taught by their parents that it's wrong...a girl becomes sexually aware as soon as she hits puberty, which for some girls can be as young as 11 years old, while boys tend to hit it about 14.

What i've really noticed on this board though is there's a great deal of American's imposing American values on this issue as well. Unfortunately that simply can't be done as the artist is Australian and the issues involved are the Australian Censorship Laws; and thus the law is a grey area in this situation. Each state has their own laws as well as federal laws. Sydey's conservative are crying out against the art, Sydney'd Literatti are not. No one is seriously thinking of prossecuting, it's just newspaper sensationalism; which any educated Australian reader knows. Melbourne is already planning the exhibition to show in it's entirety. At the Mnemosyne exhibition he showed a wall of images of a naked (I think he was 15?) year old boy, which no one gave a hoot about. It was simply seen as a beautiful display of the human form. It is only with our change in government, to a ridiculously Christian conservative that this issue has come into play. He didn't like the images, therefore the gallery was forced to take them down. The last government had absolutely no issue with the artist. So you see, American sensibilities simply don't come into play in this issue at all. Once agian, people need education before commenting on the merits of art.

To the posters above who are giving the American High School system as an indication of high school age; Australian high schools start at year 7 where the teens start at anywhere between age 11 and 13 (depending what age they started school). I can guarantee year 7's are already experimenting sexually. It's the year we have our first boyfriend's, it's the age most Australian's will have started fooling around. Generally not complete sexual gratification, but enough to realize that we all have sexual natures, which are usually culminated around the age of 15. (This is the general trend however, and does not apply to all.) I wrote one of my theses' on the trends of global sexuality, so I do actually know what I'm talking about.

Terrokian, everything you say just shows you don't know a thing about the artists. Most of his models are around, undamaged and have in the past done interviews. He has been making controvercial art since 1974 (and probably before, but her first became well known in the 70's). He has never disappeared from the public eye, and he certainly won't now. 10+ years ago these WERE art; they are still art.

Seriously people EDUCATE YOURSELVES. Terrokian, your comments simply make you look ridiculous, since you seriously know nothing about art, the artist, or Australian social values.

pumpkin pie · Jun 03, 2008, 05:34 AM // 05:34

lol, pamelf, seriously, how do you know we did not look into the matter before making comments?

are you saying people who are not educated about your so call "art" cannot make comments on a "self-proclaim-art-photography" of a naked 13 year old child, that is intended to be display in an art gallery?

I could get link for you of very beautiful naked child pictures that is being link from pornography pages, but I don't want to because its sick, if you want to "educate yourself" go look it up. even book printed by the very famous art book publisher Taschen that shows nudity of adult are being link from pornography website. go figures.

This has nothing to do with art, the truth is you cannot define art. no one can. and everyone has a say in art. if you are only going to be looking at art from "educated person" then lol go back to your art history book, or better yet, please, if you like, read "way of seeing" by John Berger.

pamelf · Jun 03, 2008, 05:41 AM // 05:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

are you saying people who are not educated about your so call "art" cannot make comments on a "self-proclaim-art-photography" of a naked 13 year old child, that is intended to be display in an art gallery?

Absolutely, that is exactly what I am saying. And he's not self proclaimed. Like I said, he's a well known, well established Australian artist since 1974. There is a lot in this issue that needs to be known before you can make an educated discussion. You have so far said nothing that convinces me this is not art, because you don't have the tools at your disposal to make a valid argument. You can't back up your points unless you have all the facts. All you share is a conservative opinion, and do not actually contribute anything to the discussion...

Text without context is pretext. Without the tools to validate your arguments it is simply pretext.

By the way, I'm an Art History and Curatorship Masters student, I have read "Ways of Seeing", which was actually based on a television series he developed which is better. Absolutely, art cannot be defined, but as such it is also far more difficult to censor. Things however can be clearly art, but can defy definition. Bill Henson's work is definitely art.

pumpkin pie · Jun 03, 2008, 05:43 AM // 05:43

lol, okay, i'll let you win, until you know better.

this is not about omg you idiot this is THE OH SO FAMOUS BILL HENSON, this is about OMG STOP EXPLOITING CHILDREN and let them be children.

there are plenty of ways to express what Bill Henson wants to express, for instant Georgia O'keefe, did she need to paint you a vagina? no lots and lots and lots of other ways of expression of puberty and adolescent and the transition period or what ever Bill Henson claim to be expressing, so stop using art as a smoke screen.

pamelf · Jun 03, 2008, 07:57 AM // 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

no lots and lots and lots of other ways of expression of puberty and adolescent and the transition period or what ever Bill Henson claim to be expressing, so stop using art as a smoke screen.

There's your problem. Learn what it IS he's trying to express then come back and post a comment... Until you know that you have no valid comments to give us.

azzer20 · Jun 03, 2008, 08:07 AM // 08:07

the people that are saying it's porn gets turned on by it, those who see it as art, knows it's just children and there is no pornography in it.

Kashrlyyk · Jun 03, 2008, 08:20 AM // 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzer20

the people that are saying it's porn gets turned on by it, those who see it as art, knows it's just children and there is no pornography in it.

I wouldn´t go that far. But I think that people that set nudity equal to sex, are complaining about it, while the normal ones don´t. Yes, it is not normal to automatically link nudity to sex. You can be nude without it being sexual at all. That is why pornography != nude pictures! Therefore nude pictures of children are not automatically child pornography.

Sleeper Service · Jun 03, 2008, 08:25 AM // 08:25

youve (all) gone off track here.

What is "art" is not the question but i'll answer it anyways.

art is perception and as such a personal experience that can only be defined by the viewer.

anything and everything is "art" (the single reason why i hate "modern" art(ists) but hey...everything was "modern art" at a given time too so the problem is mine).

yes representing the figure of a nude model, be they old, young, female, male dressed, undressed dead or alive....is ART.

pornography is art, yes even child pornography can be art. pictures of dead cut up cows enclosed in plastic can be art, piles of fresh shit can be art too.

rather than discussing "what is art" (a futile and worthless endevour somewhat akin to defining "evil") you should be asking what is it in our society that makes certain people think "SEX" when looking at a photograph of a young teen as well as why the people in power accept that particular take as the norm.

the typical "think about the children" reaction is laughable and somewhat pitiful to say the least. you want to protect children? stop buying products from these countries/companies, force your governments to stop trade, enforce sanctions and heck maybe even "liberate" these people.

and to all the prudes....ill give you some shocking news. we are all naked under our clothes. what ya gonna do about it? add more clothes?

pumpkin pie · Jun 03, 2008, 10:28 AM // 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

There's your problem. Learn what it IS he's trying to express then come back and post a comment... Until you know that you have no valid comments to give us.

I did not go to university, yes so that automatically makes me unable to comment on subject that concern everyone? I know about art history, aesthetics, I read Gombridge and many many art books to know what is happening in the art world but you an art history students would come up with comment as the above is laughable and pitiful, your eltism is at a scarry level.

Let me ask you, what is art without a public? NOTHING. If no one talks about it its shit, if no one even care what it is its shit, Art is for everyone and everyone has a different point of view towards a subject matters, everyone has different like and dislikes. and if you think art is only for the few "educate people" you are so wrong. so very wrong.

let me quote you this from the movie Good Will Hunting: "One, don't do that. Two-- you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you coulda' picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library."

If you care at all about art, you would have read the article I linked earlier which says it best

"If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited, society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better."

unless you are okay with the continue exploitation of the female and children "sex" appeal into making people want to buy something, then I really have nothing else to say.

This is not about being prude, prude is someone who is afraid of adult nudity not EXPLOITED CHILD SEXUALITY TO SELL SOMETHING OR MAKING SOMEONE FAMOUS. Its just wrong. A good artist would know better and would avoid the subject matter. A good artist would find a better way to make people see that exploitation of the child sexuality as a commodity is wrong. Although Bill Henson's photography is very good yes I do think its hauntingly beautiful in a non-sexual way, but if consenting and agreeing to that means having to exploit someone else especially a child I rather not have that on my conscience. I rather not have that hauntingly beautiful picture if it means some child some where might be exploited.

Last but not least, what is wrong with the world that the female body has become a trade-able commodity legally be it in book forms, in movies, in life shows, anywhere you look, there must be a naked female body selling something, and now you must have a naked child as well. why?

Another question, when you become a curator, and someone dislike an exhibition you curate are you going to ask them to Learn what that artist is trying to say? you know someone just happens to walk into the gallery you happens to be in and curating an exhibition, you are going to say: "look, this is your problem, go learn this artist before coming to the show."?

Sleeper Service · Jun 03, 2008, 10:59 AM // 10:59

"If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. (...)"

IF

case in point artists have no "responsibility" to anyone they ARE, they represent society, present it with a refection or a view of itself.

"...After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited(...)"

A decade ? more like since the dawn of mankind. and no children are not "increasingly" exploited, in fact they are increasingly PROTECTED.

the only exploitation going on here is the increasing media exploitation of irrational first world country FEARS resulting in over the top PC backlash showcased by cases like this.

"(...)society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better(...)."

society? a fraction of A society. a group of "do gooders" who using the very tool that caused this "backlash" create enough noise to overrule the voice of reason and cause panic within the hearts of the political elite.

and why do they get this coverage? because media and information is a commodity and NEWS SELLS.

the circle is complete, the wurm eats itself and the next drama can take place at the front between your favorite show and miracle cream that turns back time.

mixing reality with the medias perception of reality is a bad STUPID thing to do.

do your own thinking.

pumpkin pie · Jun 03, 2008, 12:40 PM // 12:40

okay, i get it now. Well, perception of other people not thinking is also a bad and STUPID thing to do.

I have my own thinking and it happens to be some what same as what was written there +- so i link it rather than having to write a long essay about it.

pamelf · Jun 03, 2008, 02:01 PM // 14:01

Pumpkin Pie, to all your rhetorical questions, the answer is in fact 'yes.' Exhibitions aren't just a collection of objects you come and stare at for a few hours. They tell a story. You wouldn't go to a movie and ignore the plot, text, dialogue, etc and just look at a disjointed series of images snapped together...you'd go to enjoy a film. Which is the sum of it's parts. The exact same goes for an exhibition. It has a story, a theme, a social dialogue. I wasn't saying you can't comment because you haven't gone to university, I was simply stating that until you learn what the theme of an exhibition is there is nothing that you can categorically contribute to a discussion about it's place, or it's acceptability. To your statement

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Another question, when you become a curator, and someone dislike an exhibition you curate are you going to ask them to Learn what that artist is trying to say? you know someone just happens to walk into the gallery you happens to be in and curating an exhibition, you are going to say: "look, this is your problem, go learn this artist before coming to the show."?

ABSOLUTELY this is what i'd say. If a person goes to an exhibition without bothering to find out what it's about, or what it's trying to say and says they didn't like it that is absolutely 100% their problem. If they are educated and aware about what an exhibition is trying to say and then come to me as a curator with valid objections to the way certain things were set out or presented, then, and only then would they be taken seriously, and their objections taken on board.

Children and sexual exploitation is for me a different issue than these images. They are not overtly sexual, they are just nude. And within their context (do you know what that is yet?) they are haunting, poignant, and very confronting.

BTW, art is in fact still art even if no one has viewed it. The public make it Popular Art. A person can be an artist for themselves and themselves alone. Some peole gain notoriety, others not. But one does not need a public to be an artist.

DreamRunner · Jun 03, 2008, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I did not go to university, yes so that automatically makes me unable to comment on subject that concern everyone? I know about art history, aesthetics, I read Gombridge and many many art books to know what is happening in the art world but you an art history students would come up with comment as the above is laughable and pitiful, your eltism is at a scarry level.

Let me ask you, what is art without a public? NOTHING. If no one talks about it its shit, if no one even care what it is its shit, Art is for everyone and everyone has a different point of view towards a subject matters, everyone has different like and dislikes. and if you think art is only for the few "educate people" you are so wrong. so very wrong.

First of all, she wasn't being an elitist. She was patronizing you. From your posts in this thread, its certainly needed.

What an horrible point. Art without the public is nothing? What the hell is that. Some artist have made pieces that they want to express but only been known for themselves. Have you created something to remind you of something important to yourself? That sucks if you haven't, however people have created art pieces because it might hold something on a very deep level to themselves which they don't want to show others.
I and maybe Pamelf are saying that people can't provide any decent feedback on why Bill Henson's' work isn't art and from your point which you have raised, its exactly why we have said this.

I wanted to continue but god dammit, your post is so bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I have my own thinking and it happens to be some what same as what was written there +- so i link it rather than having to write a long essay about it.

Thank god! I would have had to re-read it many times to get a full understanding.

pumpkin pie · Jun 03, 2008, 03:33 PM // 15:33

I don't think Bill Henson should use naked minor as a subject in his art work, thats my view, the both of you obviously do not think that anyone should have any other views but praise him. Well surprise, not everyone has to praise him, if he did not use naked minor as a subject then yes he is a good photographer. But too bad he chooses to use them. Hence I do not need to even look into why he is using them or what he's trying to say. (although I did dig into it already.) I already know Children are beautiful innocent creature, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW THEM TO ME IN NAKED FORM I ALREADY KNOW. (I suspect plenty of people also know that as well)

Yes, and I repeat, if you do not have a public, no one to appreciate your creations, your creations = nothing. Its logic.

If Katherine Hepburn (4 times academy award winner) did not have people gone to see her movies you think she gotten those awards? No. Its logic. (since she's dead i am not going to say she's nothing, in fact she's very talented, i am just using her to make a point)

Do you think if no one go look at Bill Henson's photography that his photography will be famous? NO it will = nothing. Its logic

Do you think if no one watches soccer that David Beckham would be as rich as he is today? NO, he would be a nobody. Its logic

Hence art without a public = nothing, its logic.

You are mistaken regarding my art without a *public = nothing, I am not talking about your diary, your own poetry or anything you may spend a lot of time making that you hold dear, frankly I also don't care if you have or if I have or have not created anything because that is not what this is about that would totally falls onto another area. I am talking about creation that people intend to show other people to gain fame from to make money from which is what Bill Henson's Photographs are about, fame and money, without a public = nothing

*I use the word public here because I don't want to use audience, public is more "common", to show accessibility by everyone, anyone and not the elite gallery going people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Pumpkin Pie, to all your rhetorical questions, the answer is in fact 'yes.' Exhibitions aren't just a collection of objects you come and stare at for a few hours. They tell a story. You wouldn't go to a movie and ignore the plot, text, dialogue, etc and just look at a disjointed series of images snapped together...you'd go to enjoy a film. Which is the sum of it's parts. The exact same goes for an exhibition. It has a story, a theme, a social dialogue. I wasn't saying you can't comment because you haven't gone to university, I was simply stating that until you learn what the theme of an exhibition is there is nothing that you can categorically contribute to a discussion about it's place, or it's acceptability. To your statement ABSOLUTELY this is what i'd say. If a person goes to an exhibition without bothering to find out what it's about, or what it's trying to say and says they didn't like it that is absolutely 100% their problem. If they are educated and aware about what an exhibition is trying to say and then come to me as a curator with valid objections to the way certain things were set out or presented, then, and only then would they be taken seriously, and their objections taken on board.

Children and sexual exploitation is for me a different issue than these images. They are not overtly sexual, they are just nude. And within their context (do you know what that is yet?) they are haunting, poignant, and very confronting.

BTW, art is in fact still art even if no one has viewed it. The public make it Popular Art. A person can be an artist for themselves and themselves alone. Some peole gain notoriety, others not. But one does not need a public to be an artist.

first of all you did not read all that I have written.
secondly you do not know how I look at art work.
thirdly you do not have to LEARN what an exhibition is about, art to me is about expression, passion, enthusiasm, empathy, feelings and many more thing. the most important is first impression, the minute you walk into a gallery you know what hangs on the wall is worth looking at, or you walk right out of it. thats how I look at art works, with feeling.

bhavv · Jun 03, 2008, 03:41 PM // 15:41

What is this then:

http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/exh..._08/collection

Naked children? OMG???

(Scroll down a bit)