graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

one for buebell

Hey bluebell you've been a long time coming

j08

j08 You've surpassed yourself!

All I can add is this:
Matthew 18:6

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Why did Matthew have to qualify his statement by including '...who believe in me...'? Does that imply that a little one who does not believe in Jesus or a Christian version of god is any less vulnerable?

Good point - I think it is meant to imply their natural innocence and perhaps trust? In the way ittle children trust their parents - and by extension, adults?
I think this trust is why any form of child abuse is simply so abhorrent.

Has to be seen in context .. Quotations are valid but don't forget the words were spoken several years before being written down so sometimes the interpretation of the writer comes through Extra bits may have been added to the original words . From what we know of Jesus , he would not be wanting to exclude anyone.

Now why am I reminded of a naughty boy trying to shock the grown ups? I don't find child abuse of any kind amusing. Does that prove I have no sense of humour?

The fact that J0 used the words 'mucky pictures' tells us everything we need to know.

I feel inclined not to report that 'mucky pics' comment by Jinglr, Bluebell. If she chooses to demonstrate such awful views about this issue of children being exploited, let it remain there . After all, the proponents of no censorship, even when it comes to children, would only complain that they should be allowed to read what was said. How sad.

I agree when - I'd rather it stayed there so we can see the mind set it demonstrated and can therefore put such views and attitudes as she and her supporters exhibited in context.

Ovenden was able to paint his 'mucky pictures' by blindfolding young girls and asking them to play a taste game...which included tasting his 'thumb' ?For this he gets a suspended sentence and sympathy for being old. So yes Iam64 you are right to be disgusted and I'm sad that this discussion has been trivialised

bluebell I suppose I should say thanks to you and when for deciding not to report the 'mucky photos' remark which I assumed was ironic!!

j08 thanks for posting the photos.

I bet the gnome is a Private Eye one. I always wanted one of those!

'She's old enough to know better' is the one I mentioned earlier as being used on the 1960s (or thereabouts) paperback version of Lolita. It's absolutely staggering that the image and attitude demonstrated by the title was thought to be generally acceptable in those days. I don't remember noticing at the time.

I agree the Tuke paintings are beautiful. I don't find them particularly disturbing.

I finally had a look at the Ovenden ones and I think they are also beautiful - but very disturbing, offensive even.

Incidentally, how I yearned to look like that when I was a chunky 11 year old. Instead, I was 'omicky' as my mother used to like to say.

It's nerve-wracking posting on this thread as you never know when something is going to be reported and deleted before you've had a chance to have a look.

Am I being dense here - (don't answer that) iam64 and whenim64 - same person? or not?

Obviously not - my mistake!

No, pure coincidence, Gracesmum, but found we have much in common when we met at the north-west get-together last week.

Fortunate that you do not hold diametrically opposed views then

I haven't been following the case [out of touch with everything at the moment] so had no idea of how this man had behaved. But do think we need a thread discussing what is or isn't acceptable in art. For example, in the film [and the book as well, I assume] Girl with a Pearl Earring it was implied that the painting was meant for someone to own and keep for their own personal titilation. So, when does a painting cease to be acceptably erotic in some way? Is it all down to the reason for the viewer looking at it? And, are many painting open to different interpretations? Other than Rothkos, Jackson Pollocks et al I would imagine that they are. There are plenty of painting of nude women [think Botticelli] so why do the Henry Tuke ones make me feel so uncomfortable?

Did everyone see the Winterhalter portrait of Queen Victoria that Albert had done for his private rooms? It's quite sexy but she's fully clothed. Looks startlingly like Princess Beatrice. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/8931869/Secrets-of-Queens-greatest-treasures-to-be-revealed-in-major-new-BBC-series-The-Art-of-Monarchy.html
Should we object to art that makes us feel uncomfortable? Should art make us feel uncomfortable?

The possible homeoerotic element?

That was in reply to Tegan.

I would prefer it if art did n' t make me uncomfortable. I like to feel an empathy, if that is the right word. Or at least an appreciation of the beauty in the painting.

Yes; would I have thought that 20 years ago? As with the Balthus paintings, I just liked the style in which they were painted; at the time it never crossed my mind that he was painting pre pubescent girls.

When I walk round an art gallery I don't stop and look at every painting [not enough time to do that], just pause in front of the ones that catch my eye, and that can be because of style, or empathy or just the colour.