ForumGarden

Hoss;1043539 wrote: I don't think I’ve ever heard something this snobbish here.

I can see you looking down at us non artsy-fartsy people while you said what you just said.

I wouldn't consider myself an artist, but I do appreciate good art, and I do have an opinion on what is good and what is bad. If only artsy people can venture an opinion then you’re not going to sell much art.

I saw a Pablo Picasso painting yesterday, 'woman in the blue hat'... That was not good art to me. It was bad art. It may have been art, but I didn't like it.


Do you think that it is fair for someone who has no interest in art to enter the serious thread of another member who is discussing her art and show disdain for her work?

Not sure why you are putting yourself in the same group. The comment is regarding those who have no interest in art yet interfere in the discussion. What I've seen from you is an effort to give a considered opinion. You don't have to have knowledge of art to be helpful to the seriousness of the discussion, you just have to have a desire to seriously discuss it.

You said "I wouldn't consider myself an artist, but I do appreciate good art..." so... my comment doesn't apply to you.

btw, Hoss, if the use of the phrase "plough-boy" is the problem, I hope you recognise that I quoted that. By all means you could take it up with the author... I linked to his book.

K.Snyder;1043347 wrote: Well from my own personal opinion I don't care to see a man's junk...


I'm just glad that it seems as though men have definitely evolved in that area....

Here's an interesting discussion piece.

Salvador Dali

Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by Her Own Chastity

Attached files

koan;1043529 wrote: pretty much...

The plough-boy is representative of a person who is not educated in art or who lacks an appreciation for it for one reason or the other.

It's hardly fair for someone who doesn't appreciate art to place their opinion of nudes in art amidst serious discussion between art lovers, and expect to have their opinion carry weight. Go ahead and voice your opinion, I'm just clarifying that it's coming from someone who is not interested in art... therefore not worth a hell of lot regarding the matter at hand.


Oh, trust me koan I have no illusions as to whether or not my interests consist of changing the opinions of others regarding art...I couldn't think of any other concept than for opinions pertaining to art to be the most diverse throughout human ideology...In fact I'm wondering why my opinion to not care for art brings about discussion...I think I'm just as entitled as anyone to have an opinion not only about art in general but specific sculptures...Perception of "art" is not peculiar to the minds that retain it...(I'm not attacking you I'm just making a statement...)

But as for the "plough-boy" is completely relative...My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's opinion pertaining to "art"...No different than me calling someone a "stooge" who doesn't know what a balk is...Completely relative and based solely off of one's opinion.

koan;1043576 wrote: Do you think that it is fair for someone who has no interest in art to enter the serious thread of another member who is discussing her art and show disdain for her work?


I could say that every piece of "artwork" ever constructed by a human being was crap which would ultimately make those who feel a particular piece of artwork were exceptional had no clue as to what "art" really is and I retain that right. Why is that different than what you've displayed as "interfering"?...

Sounds unjustifiable as far as I'm concerned.

Hoss;1039173 wrote: I really don’t know how to respond to you. No, I wasn’t accusing you of anything. I was just trying to ask you to be more careful so that younger people don’t happen across something that may be too mature for them to handle yet. Somebody like me for instance!


At eighteen you should be mature enough to know art from pornography and not to *look* at what you don't want to see.

Children do not need to be protected from art, they need to be taught to appreciate it.

K.Snyder;1044550 wrote: I could say that every piece of "artwork" ever constructed by a human being was crap which would ultimately make those who feel a particular piece of artwork were exceptional had no clue as to what "art" really is and I retain that right. Why is that different than what you've displayed as "interfering"?...

Sounds unjustifiable as far as I'm concerned.


I think I know what you prior post was saying but I'm not convinced it made sense so I'm focusing on what you said here.

The difference is that someone who has no respect for art, going into a member's thread where that member is discussing her own art, and expressing the negative opinions you have... then clarifying that you have no interest in appreciating art at all... is trolling.

Being that I'm a mod, I felt the need to put your efforts in perspective.

Bryn Mawr;1044588 wrote: At eighteen you should be mature enough to know art from pornography and not to *look* at what you don't want to see.



Children do not need to be protected from art, they need to be taught to appreciate it.


Ohhhhhh Bryn:yh_star very well said and so true. When I was younger we live 10 minutes from Manhattan. My parents took my brothers and I into New York at least 3 times a month. We visited all the museums in the city and saw all of the beautiful art work, sculptures and exhibits,,,,how lucky we were:-4

koan;1044635 wrote: I think I know what you prior post was saying but I'm not convinced it made sense so I'm focusing on what you said here.

The difference is that someone who has no respect for art, going into a member's thread where that member is discussing her own art, and expressing the negative opinions you have... then clarifying that you have no interest in appreciating art at all... is trolling.

Being that I'm a mod, I felt the need to put your efforts in perspective.


It's not trolling because I haven't criticized "art"...You're confusing the differences...I've given my opinion pertaining to "art" in general not criticizing it...I've done nothing but voiced how I'd like to see anyone's art...

What's there not to understand?...

I'm not entitled to my opinions outside of partial judgment?...

K.Snyder;1044643 wrote: It's not trolling because I haven't criticized "art"...You're confusing the differences...I've given my opinion pertaining to "art" in general not criticizing it...I've done nothing but voiced how I'd like to see anyone's art...

What's there not to understand?...

I'm not entitled to my opinions outside of partial judgment?...


You are in a thread that is specifically about a ForumGarden member's personal artwork. That the discussion has also included general chatter about art does not mean that the person who has told us she is an artist, who chooses to paint nudes, is not a real member of the forum who has feelings and justifiable pride in the fact that she has actually completed works of art instead of just thinking about it.

We haven't seen them yet but they exist.

If FB had started this thread by posting her paintings I would hope the thread would read a hell of a lot different than it currently reads.

repeat: this thread is about an FG member who has art and is willing to share it with us. Anyone who discourages that is in my bad books. It doesn't mean a hell of a lot to be in my bad books... I'm just clarifying my position in relation to your position. My position is pretty much "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".

What I'm reading from you is that you want to see her titties but you don't want to see any male "junk" and that you don't appreciate art in general.

Have some respect for your fellow FG member.

koan;1044662 wrote: You are in a thread that is specifically about a ForumGarden member's personal artwork. That the discussion has also included general chatter about art does not mean that the person who has told us she is an artist, who chooses to paint nudes, is not a real member of the forum who has feelings and justifiable pride in the fact that she has actually completed works of art instead of just thinking about it.

We haven't seen them yet but they exist.

If FB had started this thread by posting her paintings I would hope the thread would read a hell of a lot different than it currently reads.

repeat: this thread is about an FG member who has art and is willing to share it with us. Anyone who discourages that is in my bad books. It doesn't mean a hell of a lot to be in my bad books... I'm just clarifying my position in relation to your position. My position is pretty much "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". Where did I ever voice that I didn't want to see her art work?...I would love to see her art work...At first I thought the entire idea was a joke because there had been a poll that I'd seen before I came in here blatantly portraying the entire idea as a bit of a joke.

koan;1044662 wrote:

What I'm reading from you is that you want to see her titties but you don't want to see any male "junk" and that you don't appreciate art in general.

Have some respect for your fellow FG member. You're obviously over exaggerating. If I hadn't thought it was a bit of a joke I wouldn't have expressed myself in a manner that illustrated the fact.

Oh I get it perhaps you think I'm not mature enough to view art based on the fact that I like to flirt? Well, that's just stupid, sorry. I don't know anyone more mature enough to view art depicting nudity. I've blatantly expressed my opinion that I don't care to view "art" portraying naked men, but I take it you think I might gaze upon a sculpture depicting a nude woman like I just got out of prison after 35 years and had the mentality of risking my life in a flood to save my fathers amateur porno collection he'd reserved for me.

I've readily apologized for thinking it were a joke on behalf of fuzzy butt's passion for art. I'll do nothing more.

K.Snyder;1044709 wrote: Where did I ever voice that I didn't want to see her art work?...I would love to see her art work...At first I thought the entire idea was a joke because there had been a poll that I'd seen before I came in here blatantly portraying the entire idea as a bit of a joke.

You're obviously over exaggerating. If I hadn't thought it was a bit of a joke I wouldn't have expressed myself in a manner that illustrated the fact.

Oh I get it perhaps you think I'm not mature enough to view art based on the fact that I like to flirt? Well, that's just stupid, sorry. I don't know anyone more mature enough to view art depicting nudity. I've blatantly expressed my opinion that I don't care to view "art" portraying naked men, but I take it you think I might gaze upon a sculpture depicting a nude woman like I just got out of prison after 35 years and had the mentality of risking my life in a flood to save my fathers amateur porno collection he'd reserved for me.

I've readily apologized for thinking it were a joke on behalf of fuzzy butt's passion for art. I'll do nothing more.
ok. I saw your first post here, now deleted, then your post about men showing their junk, then a post saying you have no interest in art.

I was not trying to exaggerate. I was not aware there was a joke aspect to what you were writing. As an artist myself I found your comments very offensive if they had been written seriously.

You've still thoroughly confused me with some of your subsequent posts but I don't think I need to wrestle the meaning out of them. If you are saying you didn't mean it the way I read it, then I am glad and I withdraw my criticism of your posts here... Though the plough-boy post was not a criticism it was an observation by a psychologist that I was sharing with the thread. What a person gets out of art says more about themselves than about the artist.

koan;1044717 wrote: ok. I saw your first post here, now deleted, then your post about men showing their junk, then a post saying you have no interest in art.

I was not trying to exaggerate. I was not aware there was a joke aspect to what you were writing. As an artist myself I found your comments very offensive if they had been written seriously.

You've still thoroughly confused me with some of your subsequent posts but I don't think I need to wrestle the meaning out of them. If you are saying you didn't mean it the way I read it, then I am glad and I withdraw my criticism of your posts here... Though the plough-boy post was not a criticism it was an observation by a psychologist that I was sharing with the thread. What a person gets out of art says more about themselves than about the artist.


Well, thank you. I would have hated to try and defend something I've never meant to be any ill intention. It's rather tiresome...:wah:...

For the record, the entire event was preceded by a poll that has been deleted that blatantly illuminated her want to post her art were a bit of a joke...I'm not trying to blame the person who posted the poll. In fact, I think it was quite harmless. What I am saying is that I think some contexts has been taken way out of proportion and needs to be brought to the light of true intention...

And I know the "plough-boy" bit was an excerpt trust me I'm not offended. I know the difference between references and all out assault.

And my previous posts you're having trouble with illustrates my opinion on just that. I think even ones who do not have an interest in "art" have equally as pertinent of an opinion as anyone else. "Art" is based entirely off of ones perception, good or bad. Otherwise "you" have a contradicting logic pertaining to the matter...

What a person gets out of art says more about themselves than about the artist.


fuzzy butt;1046243 wrote: Not a truer word has been spoken


Well, I've never once questioned my sexuality so I'm quite comfortable with that. :wah:...

K.Snyder;1044709 wrote:

Oh I get it perhaps you think I'm not mature enough to view art based on the fact that I like to flirt?


You flirt K? Nah...never......don't believe it.....

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

fuzzy butt;1047405 wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how you got that out of the conversation ?

:wah::wah::wah:


Well because the only moment I've ever voiced my lack of interest in viewing "art" was when it were depicting males nude...I'm sorry, I just have no interest in seeing "art" depicting male nudity. I don't even know how to explain that really. ...

:yh_bigsmi...

K.Snyder;1047410 wrote: Well because the only moment I've ever voiced my lack of interest in viewing "art" was when it were depicting males nude...I'm sorry, I just have no interest in seeing "art" depicting male nudity. I don't even know how to explain that really. ...

:yh_bigsmi...


Well I see it as being biased. You like seeing women nude and would love to see those pics posted but not men and feel because you don't like it, it shouldn't be posted.

When Fuzzy posted the nude male statues, I didn't look at them and home in straight on their bits, its a statue, its not sexual, its Art.

Post a nude woman statue and I would feel the same.

Try and go back and study those male statues without looking at his crown jewels and look at it as Art and not nudity or sexual. May help you enjoy it for what it is K:-4

Have you posted the pic yet Fuzzy?

Well I'm wait to see it for sure.

Chezzie;1047500 wrote: Well I see it as being biased. You like seeing women nude and would love to see those pics posted but not men and feel because you don't like it, it shouldn't be posted.

When Fuzzy posted the nude male statues, I didn't look at them and home in straight on their bits, its a statue, its not sexual, its Art.

Post a nude woman statue and I would feel the same.

Try and go back and study those male statues without looking at his crown jewels and look at it as Art and not nudity or sexual. May help you enjoy it for what it is K:-4


Actually, Chezzie, I've never said that art depicting male nudity shouldn't be posted. Not even slightly. All I said, was that I was not particularly interested in such "art" to begin with. I have looked at the statues and they're great! I couldn't applaud anyone more than to have the gift of molding such creations. By all means post them!(I'm not yelling just quite simply I encourage anyone to express their right to free speech.)

I think what's happening here is people taking what's been said light years out of context.

I could never imagine creating any sculptures even remotely close to the ones having been displayed in this thread and for that I respect all of those who can. I honestly feel it's an outstanding gift.

And when I look at "art" depicting nude women that's completely fine but I have to, quite honestly......:wah:...:yh_bigsmi......, say such pales in comparison to the real beauty of the female genome. Much like how I consider the Earth to be the greatest works of "art" that ever will exist in the history of mankind compared to your average swivel globe. No comparison.

K.Snyder;1050100 wrote: Actually, Chezzie, I've never said that art depicting male nudity shouldn't be posted. Not even slightly. All I said, was that I was not particularly interested in such "art" to begin with. I have looked at the statues and they're great! I couldn't applaud anyone more than to have the gift of molding such creations. By all means post them!(I'm not yelling just quite simply I encourage anyone to express their right to free speech.)

I think what's happening here is people taking what's been said light years out of context.

I could never imagine creating any sculptures even remotely close to the ones having been displayed in this thread and for that I respect all of those who can. I honestly feel it's an outstanding gift.

And when I look at "art" depicting nude women that's completely fine but I have to, quite honestly......:wah:...:yh_bigsmi......, say such pales in comparison to the real beauty of the female genome. Much like how I consider the Earth to be the greatest works of "art" that ever will exist in the history of mankind compared to your average swivel globe. No comparison.


Okey dokey:D:D:D

K.Snyder;1043420 wrote: I'm a "plough-boy" then because I don't like to see a man's junk...:wah:...
theres a lot more to the statues than just his "junk":rolleyes::wah:

Chezzie;1047500 wrote: Well I see it as being biased. You like seeing women nude and would love to see those pics posted but not men and feel because you don't like it, it shouldn't be posted.

When Fuzzy posted the nude male statues, I didn't look at them and home in straight on their bits, its a statue, its not sexual, its Art.

Post a nude woman statue and I would feel the same.

Try and go back and study those male statues without looking at his crown jewels and look at it as Art and not nudity or sexual. May help you enjoy it for what it is K:-4


thats what i meant:D

I cant understand why someone would think of a picture of a nude man or woman as porn, or wrong? unless of course its in a porn magazine or page three of the Sun:wah:

fuzzy butt;1049780 wrote: No not yet Milly I still have a week


I hope all the hype is worth the wait! :sneaky::p

Hurry up!!!!.... The anticipation is killing me!!!! :wah:

(I have no patience whatsoever! :wah:)