Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sarramkrop
But do compare the pictures and notice the sharp difference in the way that they come across. On the one above, the first thing that comes up to your mind is the corruption of an innocent mind through a culture that is based on money and greed, or more simply the inability for a young baby to work out what society has in store for it. You don't certainly think about such a thing as a little kid's sexuality. On the pictures discussed on this thread, there is a marked case of using a child's behaviour as a vehicle for not making a point that comes across as straightforward and unambiguous. Draw your conclusions from that.
|
You certainly, make a very good point, though I would feel that; within the context of each indiviual case; the two are not so dissimilar... Taken at face value, the photographs that have been discussed on this thread are certainly ambiguous at best, and questionable at worst. But, to take them at face value would be defeating the point; there is a common thread to the photographs and an underlying theme that contexualizes and frames them within a specific, thought-provoking mindset. When viewed through this cultural reference and context, the ambiguity of the pictures decreases markedly, to the point where it does not even become an issue. Like all art, and especially, art after the post-modernist era, to take the piece in question at face value would be missing the point altogether. Thusly, in that context, the worries and concerns of the record company executives in displaying a picture of a naked baby on the cover of Nevermind are grossly unjustifed, as are the worries that such art can be constituted as child pornography. Granted, it would take a deeper understanding of the theme involved with the pictures, and it would be fairly thought-provoking, to say the least, but then wouldn't that be the point of all art? Deeper understanding? Correct me if I have made a mistake... Thank you for reading.