FTFA: She said she's disappointed she won't have the bragging rights that come with winning the Student Gallery, but assures 13News this will not be the last nude she paints.

I fully support this young woman's artistic expression.

so let me get this straight...a girl paints a picture in which no laws or rules are broken (see artistic expression exemption) but because the paper is offended by it they deny her the prize that she rightfully won...*sniffs air* i smell a lawsuit.

you know who else didn't like all forms of art...?

phiwings: you know who else didn't like all forms of art...?

John Ashcroft?

Sheesh, her painting didn't even show any parts of her body you wouldn't see if she wore a bikini on the beach.

I'd be raising a ruckus too.

dletter: I'd be raising a ruckus too.

Is that a euphemism?

Test:

ComicBookGuy

Great, and I just used up my last drops of eye bleach on another thread.

This thread is useless without art

A nude woman won an art contest? I'm shocked--Shocked!

An art student painting a nude self portrait= attention whore? Wow, get off the laptops and go outside, guys. It's a nice day.

Oh, for fark's sake.

A newspaper taking up the cause of censorship? Is this the introduction to the opposite sketches?

That's retarded. The girl in the painting is not a minor, she has no age. It's just ink.

Before the 17 year old fans chime in I have to ask..

Have you ever seen a person really painted with nakedness?

I mean a human being painted with deadly nakedness.

Just wondering...

Well, as we saw with the case of the guy charged with child porn for videotaping the fully-clothed cheerleaders, it doesn't have to show any "naughty bits" to be pornographic.

Ridiculous

The article doesn't delve into the REALLY important question: When does this girl turn 18?

/Not that is matters to me.
//This will be me tomorrow:
///

So then posting this should get me put on a special list? and possibly PMITA prison?



/didn't think so

Alien5151: That's retarded. The girl in the painting is not a minor, she has no age. It's just ink.

You know who else doesn't have an age?

I'm pretty sure that isn't exactly her own self-portrait anyways. She only did this so that the world would think she had no blemishes.

I could understand the issue if I, being a 25 year old man, painted a nude picture of a 17 year old. It doesn't make sense to me that someone couldn't draw THEMSELVES naked though.

Einstein said it best:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

Underage paint!111111elevendy

I love that it's a painting, not a photo. And that not a single NSFW body part is shown. And that she's 17, which is at or above the age of consent in most parts of the U.S. And that they left the painting in the show, but took away her prize. And that they fired the art judge, and hired another one that picked something far more obscene as a winner.

FAIL of the week, absolutely.

uprislng: So then posting this should get me put on a special list? and possibly PMITA prison?



/didn't think so

Don't laugh. You have no idea how many software filters would knock that out of the box. As a librarian, I have been frustrated by not being able to get to an art museum site at work because it was "sexually explicit." And the people who made the decision about that girl's picture? They should suck a lemon. Artists learn the human form with nudes. And it's not like she's 10.

aerojockey: A newspaper taking up the cause of censorship? Is this the introduction to the opposite sketches?

I don't know

fredbox: Before the 17 year old fans chime in I have to ask..

Have you ever seen a person really painted with nakedness?

I mean a human being painted with deadly nakedness.

Just wondering...

oh gawd...

Oh and before the advocates of child molestation chime in i have to ask...

Have you ever molested a painting of a 17 year old girl?

I mean molested a painting with deadly force.

Just wondering...

BrianVan

I love that it's a painting, not a photo. And that not a single NSFW body part is shown.

It shows butt-crack.

the old crow: An art student painting a nude self portrait= attention whore? Wow, get off the laptops and go outside, guys. It's a nice day.

It really, really is, actually. For entering into a contest/exhibition at least. ZOMG bewbies hasn't been shocking for centuries, and hasn't been original for millennia.

Birth of Venus!= Attention whore
Chick painting nude when she knows half to most of her audience is horny teenagers==Attention whore.

Give the prize to something interesting, or at least something I can fap to.
/Think of the knuckle children.

BrianVan: And that she's 17, which is at or above the age of consent in most parts of the U.S

It's 18 in Virginia, which is where this happened.

aerojockey: BrianVan

I love that it's a painting, not a photo. And that not a single NSFW body part is shown.

It shows butt-crack.

So do a lot of plumbers.

uprislng

Have you ever molested a painting of a 17 year old girl?

I mean molested a painting with deadly force.

Just wondering...


Oh god yes.

/deadliest force possible

When do we Virginian's get our own tag. This was the top story on the local news. Even beat out the murders from last night.

aerojockey: BrianVan

I love that it's a painting, not a photo. And that not a single NSFW body part is shown.

It shows butt-crack.

You're right, she should be wearing something to cover that. Maybe a red, lacey thong. And a dollar bill hanging from the side.

Alien5151: That's retarded. The girl in the painting is not a minor, she has no age. It's just ink.

This.

When are folks going to figure out that the human body is a horrible, vulgar and shameful thing? Isn't it just common sense that the human body of a minor is even more horrible, vulgar and shameful? I just don't see the issue.

BrianVan: not a single NSFW body part is shown


So would you be comfortable having a picture like this (even if the subject was over 18) as your wallpaper at work?

Didn't think so.

Her first brush with controversy. Congratulations are in order.

Some conservatives are offended by art which depicts nudity.

The newspaper released a statement saying; "The Pilot felt the artwork was inappropriate for a high school art show, especially the depiction of a 17-year-old female minor in the nude. We are working closely with the Chrysler to avoid this situation in the future."

Corporate funded/controlled art contests.....I lack the words with which to express my contempt.

Maybe Michaelangelo's David should put on pants, too.

What does "age of consent" have to do with farking art?


Nude or otherwise?

And in this case, "nude" refers only to the art, and not to any person. Does art have to be able to consent to be nude? Consent to what?

All this stupidity mixed with prudishness makes my head asplode.

willydwonka: I could understand the issue if I, being a 25 year old man, painted a nude picture of a 17 year old. It doesn't make sense to me that someone couldn't draw THEMSELVES naked though.

I disagree, if it isn't pornographic or "obscene" then why should it matter who painted it and/or what the model's age is.

Just paint on a bikini like this picture

Barakku: the old crow: An art student painting a nude self portrait= attention whore? Wow, get off the laptops and go outside, guys. It's a nice day.

It really, really is, actually. For entering into a contest/exhibition at least. ZOMG bewbies hasn't been shocking for centuries, and hasn't been original for millennia.

Birth of Venus!= Attention whore
Chick painting nude when she knows half to most of her audience is horny teenagers==Attention whore.

Give the prize to something interesting, or at least something I can fap to.
/Think of the knuckle children.

tell me you aren't being serious. it doesn't even show any scandalous body parts. the art show judges aren't 13 year old boys. and if you were a good artist and you weren't entering your paintings into judging contests, then what the fark is the point of developing your talent?

not only that, but if you can still fap to static images just hinting at nudity I applaud you. I, for one, have been rather desensitized to nude pictures by TV, movies, and internet porn. Mostly internet porn.

*sigh*

Yes, lets stifle our children's creativity EVEN MORE...

I agree that it would be a different story if this were a 27 year old painting a 17 year old, but that is not the case. This is simply a girl trying to discover her artistic identity. She won the contest fair and square, her award shouldn't be revoked because somebody is a little offended.

I am an fairly new art teacher and I may be a little naive, but I plan on giving my students full artistic freedom within the limits of the law. If I loose my job for doing that, so be it. I won't stand for these crazies trying to tell young artists that nude art should be censored... seriously what the fark.

pinch_harmonics: Will somebody think of the children!!!!!

his peener is tiny because of a slipped chisel.

uprislng: tell me you aren't being serious. it doesn't even show any scandalous body parts. the art show judges aren't 13 year old boys. and if you were a good artist and you weren't entering your paintings into judging contests, then what the fark is the point of developing your talent?

I don't think that we, as a culture, really care much about art. we've lost an appreciation for it. we can't look at something without considering it's legal/sociopolitical/economic value. The concept of creating something merely to create is alien to most of us.