Art or Porn?

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
3
38
62
http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...sexually-explicit-art-ontario-tories-say.html

Sexually explicit art at provincial government building causes stir
Progressive Conservative MPP Laurie Scott was “disappointed” to see a public art gallery near Queen’s Park is displaying a work with explicit images of women engaged in sex acts.



(Warning: Photo contains explicit content) Sacred Circle VI by French-Canadian artist Rosalie Maheux looks like a mosaic, but a closer view shows images many would consider pornographic).
Do not click below link if you are offend by porn :D

http://rosaliehmaheux.tumblr.com/image/124232977123.


By: Richard J. Brennan Provincial Politics, Published on Thu Jul 16 2015
One person’s art is another’s porn.
Sexually explicit artwork once quietly hanging in a provincial government building has suddenly caused quite a midsummer flap.
A new sign near the entrance of little known John B. Aird Gallery inside the Macdonald block — a provincial government office complex — steps away from the Ontario legislature warns visitors “exhibit contains images intended for a mature audience.”
French-Canadian artist Rosalie H. Maheux collage of explicit sex acts — which from a distance seem innocent enough — has at least one MPP calling for its immediate removal.
Maheux, a 26-year-old University of Toronto art graduate said it was not her intention to offend anyone with her piece titled, “Sacred Circle VI,” noting she made it perfectly clear her art contained pornographic images.
She told the Star the psychedelic piece hanging in the gallery for more than three weeks now is one of a series similar works that she has shown many times before without this kind of backlash.
“My plan was not to shock. I was very clear with the gallery when I send in my submission . . . that I used pornographic images . . . everything was clear. I think that they maybe they didn’t really go through my submission very well.”

Progressive Conservative MPP Laurie Scott said a gallery — albeit one independently operated — in a public building is no place to hang artwork that includes graphic photographs of women having sex.
The Liberal government says the independent board of directors was responsible for running the gallery.
A gallery board statement said Maheux’s exhibit was chosen by ‎Canadian art critic Gary Michael Dault for its inventive, thoughtful and searching nature.
“It is not the practice of the John B. Aird Gallery to censor works and we support Canadian artist’s rights to freedom of artistic expression –– where artists can display their work with freedom for the public to see and respond to,” said the statement.
“We strive to show quality artworks that promote challenging dialogue. Rosalie Maheux’s Sacred Circle is an example of just that.”
“The gallery regrets not posting a notice earlier about the mature nature.”
Scott, her party’s women’s issues critic, said in a statement she doesn’t care what the artist had in mind, but rather the government should be leading by example in combating the sexual objectification of women.
“The fact that a publicly housed gallery has been allowed to not only display but to sell images of this nature is very worrisome,” Scott said.
Maheux countered that if someone looks at the entire piece it is not pornographic at all.
“I would really say it is more deep than that. People have said it is such a beautiful circle full of detail and colour. It’s very spiritual . . . it’s just not porn at all,” she said, adding she has “a strong feminist interest” in mind when creating her art.
The exhibit will remain in place until July 24.
 

tml

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2011
6,699
4,244
113
It's an artist using controversy to get her name known.
 

Mr Bret

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2012
5,503
983
113
This piece is very interesting in that it looks innocently pleasing to the eye from a distance, yet upon closer inspection, the porn images become apparent.

IMHO, this is fine in certain environments, but I don't think it belongs in a public government building.
Once the true nature of the work was discovered, it should have been removed immediately.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,182
2,617
113


I like it and it is definitely art (or very shitty porn). I think it is interesting and reminds me of a the tea doilies my dear straight-laced grandmother use to use. When you look closely at this (for me) Victorian lace, it is obviously made from a colourful assembly of geometric designs consisting of women engaged in sexual activities. Since my grandmother was a grandmother - obviously under the fabric of her prim and proper demeanor - she also was engaged in the same behaviour. Art is personal - that is what I found interesting about this piece.

Two things disturb me about this controversy:

First is that art cannot in anyway portray the most fundamental of human endeavors with the exception of eating and shitting. They will hang art on the glories of battle with bodies in mutilated poses, flowers, food, scenery, moods ... all but sex.

Second is that this art degrades women or that any depiction of women enjoying sex is degrading. This comes from the Victorian view that sex is disgusting and that women only endure it at the discretion of the male partner. As a filthy act that in itself degrades the virginal image of a woman, there can be no presentation of a woman actually enjoying sex - enjoying sex is only for men thus any woman displayed in a sex position is illustrating an exploited woman. Yes, even if the artist is a woman.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
13,042
3,095
113
I swear I created one of those with my Spirograph when I was a kid. lol
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,182
2,617
113
I swear I created one of those with my Spirograph when I was a kid. lol
Now that you mention it, it looks like those toys that resembled a telescope with coloured crystals. As you twisted it, you would see patterns similar to this.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
13,042
3,095
113
Now that you mention it, it looks like those toys that resembled a telescope with coloured crystals. As you twisted it, you would see patterns similar to this.
A kaleidoscope, like this.



 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,072
58
48
hornyville
This pornography.

In no way is that picture art.

The small pictures of the women and a penis, seems to be screen captures from mainstream pornographic movies.

Screen capture, then cut and paste.

Screen capture, then cut and paste. Then repeat.

Screen capture, then cut and paste. Is that suppose to be art?

BREAKING NEWS - I just farted ... I'm probably an artist now?!

Looks like Derrida will win after all.

:hippie:
 

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,564
11
38
In Canada, there is a no law against publishing pornography -- provided it's not "obscene".

The definition of "obscene" is in S.163(8) of the Criminal Code:

163(8) For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.

(Note that crime, horror, cruelty and violence are not obscene by themselves - only sex makes them so.)

There's no undue exploitation of sex in this picture and certainly no cruelty, horror, etc. So, not obscene. And it certainly is "art".
 

Gntlmn

Active member
Oct 27, 2002
871
106
43
Just given the above piece's instant-reaction-causing properties I guess that does make it art.

Anybody see "Bubbles Galore" (1996) with Nina Hartley?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115771

No matter which way you come at that movie (porn or art) it was crap! And it was produced with help from The Canadian Film Centre in Toronto.
 
Toronto Escorts