Curse

Tatile · May 31, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Warning:
Comments contain strong language.
Images contain cherubial children wearing diapers. As in, partial nudity in a similar way to how the Sistine Chapel's cherubs are depicted.
Images contain scariness.

Do Not Click If You Are Sensitive.

I though I might share this with those of you who haven't seen it:
http://www.soothbrush.com/children-fear-photography/

It's a short gallery of photographs under the theme 'childhood fears'. I find the pictures quite enjoyable in their execution of fear. Then again I'm the kind of person who enjoys watching horror movies for that sickness-in-the-gut feeling.

How do you feel?

scythefromunder · May 31, 2008, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Well after seeing those pics, I know who is going to pee their bed tonight =D.
Jkjk I really like it.

Redfeather1975 · May 31, 2008, 03:30 PM // 15:30

The little wee innocent baby has no idea it's in the arms of pure evil!
Noooooo.

Tatile · May 31, 2008, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

The little wee innocent baby has no idea it's in the arms of pure evil!
Noooooo.

Taken a look at some of the comments there? I found them both hilarious and deeply worrying. The fact that some people see a nude and immediatly think pornography. Bah, people these days.

Redfeather1975 · May 31, 2008, 05:26 PM // 17:26

Actually I didn't see all the pictures or comments.
I was too scared to scroll down that far.

Tatile · May 31, 2008, 05:30 PM // 17:30

The comments are mostly people saying they love the artistry, others saying it's kiddie porn and that the girl is now traumatised and others yelling at the second group.

Pretty same ol', same ol' in the art world.

Terrokian · May 31, 2008, 09:14 PM // 21:14

Question.Was it the little girls face and connotation of horror on it or was it her strictly in her panties that made the pic?

Seriously why couldn't she have been in pjs like a typical kid?

Not going to start a"this is porn" war,but honestly.How come she couldn't have done the same pic in some sort of typical night time attire?

If she would have worn some,I don't know cinderella or some such kid thing pjs,would this have lessened the aspect of the picture?

In some pictures she does and it didn't seem to me the impact was lessened or greatened.

So why not just have her in pjs for all the pics?

Now the pics of the baby in diapers is not so bad.

But I don't feel the girl in her panties solely was a needed aspect.She could have easily shown the horror dressed.

After all isn't horror about feeling and not clothing?There was no need to show the girl in that manner.

Furthermore how come no boys in their underwear(DO NOT read anything into that.I am most certainly NOT REMOTELY like that)?Don't little boys scare as easily as little girls?Could you not have gotten the same "value" from a boy in his underwear as a girl?

Good pics overall.But sorry to disagree on the choice of attire on a few of them.While certainly not porn.They certainly could have been done different.

Tatile · May 31, 2008, 09:16 PM // 21:16

I really have no idea. The one on the stairs she could have been clothed, but with the closet monster, she may have just woken up or gotten dried from the bath when it came out from where her clothes are.

It's not my place to say, I'm not the artist. It was probably used as a punctuation mark more than anything else.

Edit: About the boys thing, I think the artist was using their immediate, or perhaps extended, family for this. People don't nessarily have children of both sexes. S/he might not of thought of the fact they were using a young girl rather than boy. Besides, young babies look asexual to me, especially without hair.

RiKio · May 31, 2008, 09:19 PM // 21:19

k00l

12 chars

Terrokian · May 31, 2008, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatile

I really have no idea. The one on the stairs she could have been clothed, but with the closet monster, she may have just woken up or gotten dried from the bath when it came out from where her clothes are.

It's not my place to say, I'm not the artist. It was probably used as a punctuation mark more than anything else.

Edit: About the boys thing, I think the artist was using their immediate, or perhaps extended, family for this. People don't nessarily have children of both sexes. S/he might not of thought of the fact they were using a young girl rather than boy. Besides, young babies look asexual to me, especially without hair.

This could possibly be the case on this.I too am not sure as to who the subjects were nor the availability of subjects.My point(I did have to edit my post)was simply"Could this pic have been taken with some attire on the child and still achieve the same effect?"

Tatile · May 31, 2008, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

This could possibly be the case on this.I too am not sure as to who the subjects were nor the availability of subjects.My point(I did have to edit my post)was simply"Could this pic have been taken with some attire on the child and still achieve the same effect?"

Possibly. It entirely depends on what the artist wanted to achieve versus what the viewers are seeing. I, personally, don't mind either way. It's not that much of an issue to me, but I can see how it is to others.

Also, to get people to think these days, it seems you need to truly shock them, which is sad ._.

Terrokian · May 31, 2008, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Overall they are interesting and artistic.I simple think there could have been a little more clothing on a few.Nothing more.Nothing less.

Redfeather1975 · May 31, 2008, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Sometimes when we see naked people, we are reminded that we are animals at our core. Maybe that was part of the message behind why we fear things.

RedNova88 · Jun 01, 2008, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

Sometimes when we see naked people, we are reminded that we are animals at our core. Maybe that was part of the message behind why we fear things.

Indeed, and if you look you can see that the Wolf(or perhaps it's a Coyote) has a human arm, took a while to notice, and also supports that deep inside we're all animals. Good pics! Some were really freaky!

Kanyatta · Jun 01, 2008, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

Sometimes when we see naked people, we are reminded that we are animals at our core.

Thats your opinion. I may disagree, but I still respect your theory.

AidinSwiftarrow · Jun 01, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Clowns creep me out...idk why, they just do.

jiggles · Jun 01, 2008, 03:09 AM // 03:09

felt sorry for the kid well baby with that tarantula on its stomach, gonna scar the baby for life :/

though i did laugh at the others

Kerwyn Nasilan · Jun 01, 2008, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Its strange really, not like creepy just strange it really is what it says a good representaiton of childhood fears. I normally bash modern artists but I gotta give this a thumbs up!

Queenie · Jun 01, 2008, 05:07 AM // 05:07

Quite strange but really well done. =]
He's done a good job of emulating those childhood fears.

pumpkin pie · Jun 01, 2008, 06:07 AM // 06:07

lol, i r actually still afraid of the hands under the bed. yes laugh at me, but its there i tell you. and the website also forgot the hand in the toilet bowl... yes those are there too.