Argus Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Ah, so we arrive at the crux of your outrage. Nude paintings and statues of naked heroes traditionally have "tiny package," yes. If he had painted the PM as a porn star, would that have been preferable? Would the manliness of contemporary conservatism be more aptly delineated? I simply think it's outrageous to paint a nude picture of someone without their permission - real or fantasy. I'm betting most of you would be more than a little unhappy if someone did that to you and put it out there for all to see. You think this is funny because you hate Stephen Harper, that's all, so you think anything done to him is great. That's an ignorant, adolescent mentality, and I'm willing to bet you'd be less sanguine if the picture was of someone you didn't hate, especially if it was a woman. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) I can see how humour might be intimidating to someone with no sense of it. It's been a long time since I was twelve. Maybe you people could clue me in about the girlish giggles you enjoy at someone painting a naked picture of someone.... Edited June 3, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest American Woman Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 I simply think it's outrageous to paint a nude picture of someone without their permission - real or fantasy. I'm betting most of you would be more than a little unhappy if someone did that to you and put it out there for all to see. You think this is funny because you hate Stephen Harper, that's all, so you think anything done to him is great. That's an ignorant, adolescent mentality, and I'm willing to bet you'd be less sanguine if the picture was of someone you didn't hate, especially if it was a woman. I have to wonder what the reaction to a painting of a nude Queen Elizabeth, with a pot belly and boobs drooping down to her navel, would be - and if such a painting would be hung in a Canadian library. I know I wouldn't care to see it on my trips to the library.... Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 It's been a long time since I was twelve. Maybe you people could clue me in about the girlish giggles you enjoy at someone painting a naked picture of someone.... Good god. Lighten up. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 I simply think it's outrageous to paint a nude picture of someone without their permission - real or fantasy. I'm betting most of you would be more than a little unhappy if someone did that to you and put it out there for all to see. People in positions of power have to suck it up, I'm afraid. As do their more sensitive defenders. You think this is funny because you hate Stephen Harper, that's all I don't hate anyone. That's an ignorant, adolescent mentality Yes, your caricature of my view is indeed ignorant and adolescent. But it isn't my view, so the point's not relevant. and I'm willing to bet you'd be less sanguine if the picture was of someone you didn't hate, especially if it was a woman. Not a woman with tremendous political power. I wouldn't object to someone doing the same with Thatcher or Clinton or Indira Gandhi or Benazir Bhutto. Not at all. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 I have to wonder what the reaction to a painting of a nude Queen Elizabeth, with a pot belly and boobs drooping down to her navel, would be Since the very thought of it made me chuckle...I'd have to guess that much of the reaction would be that of mirth. Sure, some folks would be outraged...as is their right. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
BubberMiley Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 I have to wonder what the reaction to a painting of a nude Queen Elizabeth, with a pot belly and boobs drooping down to her navel, would be Since you're asking, I believe my reaction would be arousal. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Guest American Woman Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 Since you're asking, I believe my reaction would be arousal. Actually, "asking" and "wondering" are two different things - but you do have my complete sympathy. Quote
dre Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Most popular art is brainless. This attempt at satire is like gangsta rap - no real depth, just profanity and shocking images. Instead of true wit we see locker room humour. Supporters bray like teenagers because they will bray at anything that attacks someone on their "evil" list, like Harper. Folks might like to google up "spendthrift heirs". Once again, we are witnessing a social race to the bottom... Sorry to hear youre shocked by painted nakeness, bro! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
gunrutz Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 I wonder if it has always been the case that art is determined to be art by a small group of people or if some art like the Sistine Chapel is art for all people simply because it is truly art. It seems like the former is more the norm today. Watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ only reinforced my beliefs that much of the modern art is simply decided to be art and the sort of people who buy it are simpletons. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) I wonder if it has always been the case that art is determined to be art by a small group of people or if some art like the Sistine Chapel is art for all people simply because it is truly art. It seems like the former is more the norm today. Watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ only reinforced my beliefs that much of the modern art is simply decided to be art and the sort of people who buy it are simpletons. Well, sure, the art world is a vastly varied place, and all sorts of crazy things are going to occur. If we expand "art" to the world of film, for example--as we must--a lot of people enjoy the Transformers franchise, buy the tickets, maybe even the DVD with the "director's cut" (a sham, crude marketing idea in and of itself, incidentally, and meaningless) even though the Transformers is a crappy chunk of garbage, a terrible series of films. Same principle, at bottom. Or they like the Twilight books, for...some reason, never properly articulated. Edited June 6, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 Watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ only reinforced my beliefs that much of the modern art is simply decided to be art and the sort of people who buy it are simpletons. I think there are more than a few people who will buy something just because someone tells them it's art. They might even hate it, but if they are convinced that it's "art," and they think it will therefore be impressive to have hanging on their walls, they will buy it and display it. Or they will ooooh and ahhhh over it if they can't afford it. "it's art, don't'cha know, and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like and/or appreciate it!" Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 I think when something is complicated, challenging, or alien, many people find it easier to conclude that it is simply a sham rather than admit to themselves they don't understand. I feel the same way about religion. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
The_Squid Posted April 5, 2013 Report Posted April 5, 2013 who the hell would ever respond or click on the links to spam like this? There must be so many idiots in cyberspace to make it worth someone's time to create this shit.... Quote
jacee Posted November 26, 2015 Report Posted November 26, 2015 http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.3336554/bidding-war-for-nude-painting-of-former-pm-stephen-harper-1.3336567 Bidding war for Harper nude. :-) lol . Quote
Argus Posted November 26, 2015 Report Posted November 26, 2015 I don't think it's so bad. Conservative PMs willingly posed nude a generation or so ago, so it's following a tradition of sorts. They did? Which ones? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted November 26, 2015 Report Posted November 26, 2015 They did? Which ones? Kim Campbell ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Boges Posted November 26, 2015 Author Report Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) Kim Campbell ? cite I can't believe I made a thread about this stupid painting. Oh, it's because I thought the painting was stupid. A Hipster will buy it because he's being ironic and a total loser. Edited November 26, 2015 by Boges Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 26, 2015 Report Posted November 26, 2015 photo Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wilber Posted November 27, 2015 Report Posted November 27, 2015 photo The difference is Campbell willingly posed for a photo she approved of. Back to the Harper painting. Five grand for that? It looks like the head was photo shopped onto the body. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Michael Hardner Posted November 28, 2015 Report Posted November 28, 2015 The difference is Campbell willingly posed for a photo she approved of. Ok. I wasn't commenting on the Harper painting, just the fact that Conservative PMs willingly posed nude a generation or so ago Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted November 29, 2015 Report Posted November 29, 2015 Ok. I wasn't commenting on the Harper painting, just the fact that Conservative PMs willingly posed nude a generation or so ago This is a pathetic argument. How much of her body did you see other than her shoulders? How would you personally feel if someone painted an imaginary nude picture of your flabby middle aged body and hung it in a public place and it got in the newspapers and on the internet? Do you think this is fair commentary? I think it more akin to adolescent bullying. If this were done to a female politician there'd be national outrage rather than ignorant sniggering. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted November 29, 2015 Report Posted November 29, 2015 This is a pathetic argument. How much of her body did you see other than her shoulders? I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm just saying that posing nude isn't any big thing. How would you personally feel if someone painted an imaginary nude picture of your flabby middle aged body and hung it in a public place and it got in the newspapers and on the internet? I would be confused. If I were PM, though, I would probably see it as a form of protest or a curiosity. Maybe I would be offended. Do you think this is fair commentary? "Commentary"... not sure if it's any kind of commentary. If this were done to a female politician there'd be national outrage rather than ignorant sniggering. When Kim Campbell did it, they called her "Canada's Madonna". It's hard to predict how people would react without any context. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted November 30, 2015 Report Posted November 30, 2015 Most people who post on anonymous bulletin boards do not use Skype. That is because most people who post on these boards do so while naked. That is what I have been told - anyway. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.