Is this Offensive?

[Ann Wife and Mom]

Art of Benetton in an European Museum.

[GhostFreeHiker]

I do not find it offensive but it did make me lose my appitite. I hope thos folks did not have to pay for the show.

Its just body parts, but I'd have the same reaction to feet or elbows.

GFH

[nacktman]

A bit over the top maybe but offensive no.

[Sauna]

It is no more offensive but far too much is far too much

[Red Baron]

and the purpose of this is ---- what??

I don't find it offensive, just that I don't understand it.

[Nudony]

Well...I guess it could serve some educative purpose for children. But I think it should have shown full bodies instead of just genitals. I second everyone's opinion: a bit too much...but not really offensive

[FireProf]

I don't see it offensive at all and not sure what the problem with it is. If we're not bothered by genitalia as nudists, this wall of genitals shouldn't bother us. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

[Red Baron]

FireProf:

Here again, I don't find this offensive, I just reiterate, what is this about? Especially since you see a small child in the arms of its (apparent) mother viewing this "artwork".

You're right- why not produce full frontal nudity? That would be, in my estimation, a more appropriate venue for art work.

I don't get it.

[FireProf]

I understand completely that you are not offended by this "art work."

I also understand that you don't get the "art work." I don't either but then again, it's "art." I don't pretend to be a lover, expert or connoisseur of art, but this is some sort of art and most art, I don't get anyway.

This art work of many different male and female genitalia should not be bothersome to nudists to stir up such comments as, "made me loose my appetite," "too much is too much," "over the top." To ask those that wrote those comments, "how is it that the sight of genitalia made you loose your appetite?"

"Too much is too much," what happens when you go to the nude beach, club or resort, do you hide your eyes after viewing 6,8,10 genital areas? "Over the top?" What exactly does that mean.......Over the top?

I just think that art comes in so many different forms and this wall of genitalia should have the least negative effect on people on this site or at least nudists in general. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

[gamblefish]

Offensive?! Of course it's offensive! I mean, what was that woman thinking wearing that dress with those shoes!! Oy, utterly disgusting...

As for the rest of the crotchwork patchwork, it's very interesting, kinda like belly buttons, isn't it. I mean, some have an "inney" and some have an "outey".

[NudistGuy47]

Offensive? Not at all! But I have to agree with gamblefish and chide the woman with the shooes. They look comfortable, but don't go with the dress!

[Buck Naked Bear]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:...that dress with those shoes!! Oy, utterly disgusting... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Meow, hiss! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

As for the art...do they follow you where ever you walk in the room? LOL http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[nacktman]

Fireprof as to it being art "Taint me place to judge" so I don't.
If I like it it's art, if I don't maybe it is, maybe it's not, it is in the eye of the artist and beholder.

By "over the top" I mean wall to wall, floor to ceiling is a bit much when I feel a smaller scale representation would suffice. Others may feel different, obviously the creator of the work did.
It had nothing to do with the subject matter of the work.

The sight of Genitalia doesn't bother me, seen'em before.
Grew up working on granddaddy's farm during the summers and skinny dipping in the pond so I've seen most of the commonly found farmland species genitalia (including Humans) in America from a toddler to today...ever had to try and uncouple a pair of dogs using buckets of cold water because you didn't need any more puppies around the farm, let's just say anatomy and sex education occur long before "Personal Issues" or some other cutesy name they give them in schools when you are on a farm.

[FireProf]

Thanks for your reply and humor Fish!! Once again you've stepped in to save yet another thread!!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[realar1]

strange.
imagine if it was photo mosaics
that would be even weirder.

[Naturist Mark]

Looks like they have a lot fewer smoothies than we do in the States.

-Mark

[gawain]

No doubt the artist had the idea to 'shock the senses' with something that shouldn't be shocking at all.

And, if you really look at it...

Isn't it a match game? Find the pairs...

As Perdue once said

<span class="ev_code_RED">"parts is parts!"</span>

[fredm74]

Not offensive at all. It's just a sea of genitalia. All it does is makes me dizzy http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

-fred


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
As Perdue once said

<span class="ev_code_RED">"parts is parts!"</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MJ_KC]

Not offensive at all. Didn't bother me even slightly.

[NudeAl]

I didn't find it offensive at all. It was a bit of an eye opener. Which I guess is sort of what the artist may have been going for. I don't know I am not an artist nor a art critic. I thought it was interesting. I even see this as progress. The more art exhibits like this the more we will have removed the taboos associated with nudity. I think it could also serve to reassure some who might feel insecure about themselves seeing all the variety to the human form out there. I don't know if I'd hang it on my wall but I'd sure go to a local exhibit to see it.

[Ben_m]

I decide to be offended or not (which is why I'm not a big believer in the idea of something being "wrong" just because somebody finds it "offensive"), and no I didn't find it to be. But..., artistic?.... No, I really didn't see much of that either.

[Caipora]

It's about ten, twelve years old. Which may explain the shaving issue brought up on another thread.

It was prepared for one of the Benetton ad campaigns. Their slogan is "United Colors of Benetton", and the ads showed people of different races together, etc. Their ads of the time were designed to create controvery and thus gain free publicity. For example, one showed two babies, one very write, blond and angelic, and the other black with his curl hair teased into what looked like two horns. No real point except that it would offend some people, and they'd talk about it - and about Benetton. You can see some of their old ads (but not this one) here:
http://press.benettongroup.com/ben_en/about/campaigns/list/

Here's a page where they explain the history of their ad campaigns:
http://press.benettongroup.com/ben_en/about/campaigns/history/
If you look at 2001 there seems to be a campaign featuring nudists. Genuine ones, too: middle aged and overweight http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

IIRC, the genitalia ad was never used but famous anyways. I have a very vague recollection that around that time Benetton's chief publicist was over here for some sort of advertising panel discussion, with some serious people, and someone asked about this picture. The answer was, "It's designed to banalize. What's the big deal? Everyone's got one. I've got one. You've got one, don't you?" which reduced the questioner to embarassed laughter.
- Caipora

[sw1sweendog]

i would call it snowflakes...no two alike http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Nues]

I'm with you Ben. I don't find it offensive, but it is definitely not something I'd pay a large sum of money for to hang in my home.

[ncnudlady]

I don't think it's offensive at all.

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FireProf:
Thanks for your reply and humor Fish!! Once again you've stepped in to save yet another thread!!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh FireProf, how you do go on! Don't stop...

Anyway, I didn't see it the first time, butt I just now noticed the "title" of the piece is "Sex Education". In light of that I would say we naturists maybe should be offended because this only serves to strengthen the nudity/sex link. After all, these are pictures of simple genitalia, nothing about sex at all.

What say you?

[Journeyman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
i would call it snowflakes...no two alike http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one, Sweendog!

IMHO, the artwork does show the marvel of creation/procreation/sexuality.

[nakedjohn]

no, not at all.

If it was a bunch of noses, or ears or hands, would this be offensive?

[tomkojohn]

Not at all offensive. I thought of an interesting way to make it more artistically interesting (at least to me). I would've used small pictures of the same sort to make each large image. I.e. each panel of the large image would be composed of numerous small images tiled so that the overall impression would be the same. By using different races, etc. the small ones would act as the pixels for the large images. It would sort of be a recursive (fractal) version of the original image.

Anyone have software to do this sort of thing automatically?

In any event, it'd then be a wall with even more diversity.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

[Veal Johnson]

I love Benetton stuff. They always manage to get people tittering about their posters and sometimes even expressing outrage at this group's ability to offend their sensibilites.

It succeeds at what it is designed to do, generate publicity.

[Pieguy]

I don't find it offensive. Hmmm. Those genitalia are really just meaningless, without the man behind the penis and woman, er, around the vagina.

[tarsus]

offensive? no. art? no. ugly shoes? yes. what was she thinking?

[dan t]

Offensive no, but not something you would find hanging or posted up in the U.S.A.

[stylo]

No, not in the least. I have always been a fan of Benneton campaigns. Sometimes they feature strong political or social commentary, sometimes they merely like to provoke. I'm an old punk-rocker, so yeah. Love it. Funny as hell.

[shãybare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
Anyway, I didn't see it the first time, butt I just now noticed the "title" of the piece is "Sex Education". In light of that I would say we naturists maybe should be offended because this only serves to strengthen the nudity/sex link. After all, these are pictures of simple genitalia, nothing about sex at all.

What say you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
I agree with you, Fish, that it shows nothing about sex other than some equipment used in the process.

I like the art piece. It shows diversity of the individuals yet how they are all alike.

[herooftime8]

I agree with shaybare in how this shows individuality. It's main effect in my opinion would be to tell anyone that looks at it that these people bared what some call "private parts" for the camera, regardless of sex, shape, etc.

[shomymojo]

Skin...is in

[tinner666]

No, but I think I'll stick to my ship and seascape pics to hang on my wall. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Dario Western]

I love it! Put a load of religious fundies in that room and lock the door. ;-)

[FLslimguy]

yes... it is offensive.

Offensive to my artistic sensibilities... I mean after going to the extent that the artist has in making these blowups and mounting them on a wall (which I assume was done here and not some digital fake gallery)... there are nothing but a bunch of repeats. Get some models and make each one different. then you would have a collection making a statement of genital uniqueness... now it's a series of "yup, saw that already..."

How many times do we need to see each one? For what purpose?

[nudebushwalker]

I agree that it's not offensive; but "art" ?

on that point I agree with those who find it a bit over the top - too much of a good thing ... the artist was probably more interested in shock value, rather than "artistic merit"..
I also agree with those couple of people who wrote here, that they would prefer to see whole bodies, rather than just wall-to-wall genitalia.

[Liam]

Offensive? No, I don't think so in the slightest. It is a trifle boring. Perhaps to experience it in person and see it in actual size and perspective would make it more interesting. I would think it would also make a great deal of difference where it was placed.

[shãybare]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
The answer "Is it art or not?" is the same as with beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.

It is definitely interesting.

[G I Joe]

Offensive? Not at all. I find it unique, honest, and beautiful, because I find the human body beautiful regardless of size or shape. I agree, it would have been wonderful to see each complete body, but most likely those individuals did not want the world to know who they were. We need more pictures in every media that reaffirms nudity is original (from the beginning of time), beautiful, and wonderful!

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Offensive N0 but would I hang it in my living-room NO

Has a bit of shock effect but so would a collection of big toes.

[nuovonudo]

I'm with FLslimguy -- what's "offensive" is not the naked genitalia, but the lack of artistry (or the sheer laziness of the "artist") in repeating the same 5 or 6 male & female crotch shots.

To even call it "art" is, imho, a stretch.

[OZJames]

I am not surprised that the "art" is deemed not offensive by nudist viewers. I think there is another important question here that should be asked -

IS THE "ART" GOOD FOR THE CAUSE of NUDITY ?

By viewing over 100 genitalia all at once it somehow makes the practice of covering them up a bit silly. It's a bit like saying a four letter swear word dozens of times in rapid succession - try it!

OR

By displaying over 100 genitalia (which lets face it are not the most attractive part of the body - a bit like an ear) without the surrounding "beautiful" body attached may cause people to be more likly to cover up.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Ann Wife and Mom]

Glad to see people here still voicing their opinions. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[gn225]

I'm going to assume that the artistic image being presented is not the grid of 120 genital shots, but the photo of three people (two women and a child) standing in front of wall-to-wall genitals with the caption "Sex education." Presumably the artist is expressing an opinion about they type of sex education conveyed by modern society, which emphasizes genitalia and their function to the exclusion of all else (omission of the remainder of the bodies in the 120). Probably it is more a comment on how sex is viewed by society as a whole than about sex education in the classroom. In that respect the comments about how disagreeable it is to have only genitalia and not whole people means that the artist has hit the mark.

Art? Yes, in that it has created a visceral response to the message embodied. Great art? No; the message is too simplistic, too obvious. A single slap in the face, and then you move on. Seeing the image once, there is no reason to look at it again, nothing new to be added to the original impression.

Great art is great because it is worth experiencing over and over.

gn225

[C. Michael S.]

If the flowers of an apple tree are not offensive neither is this are not flowers genitalia of a plant, why then would the genitalia of a humanoid be something less than beautiful.
As an artist I look closely at faces and hands as well as bodies and genitalia. Oh if I could but create the verity and beauty of each. All so different and yet the same.
I find the comment “ I don’t understand the art” much more funny. Why is if that people seem to try to find meaning in art, many times art is just something an artist made. I have no prior “plan” or “purpose” the artwork is just enjoyable to do. The viewer assigns a meaning or a feeling. That is the mystery of art.

[kphoger]

funny: four years ago, i would have felt guilty looking at that art display. but now, it causes no different reaction than would looking at the same display of people's noses.

rah rah rah, go nudism!

[bill2me]

My opinion of this work is that it is telling us that we are different, yet the same. When it comes to art I believe you either like it or you don't. I'm not offended by this work, I just don't like it.

[Richard Smith]

As Caipora said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "It was prepared for one of the Benetton ad campaigns..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the reason its big, if you walked into a room and that picture was there, its probably going to be the first think people will look at, for two reasons. Firstly its massive and secondly, for textiles, it is somewhat of a taboo. It therefore will achieve its purpose of advertising. I therefore don't think its artistic, its an ad, its simply trying to catch peoples attention.

I don't think it offensive either.

[WacoTX]

Can't advertising art be artistic?

[Richard Smith]

I think that to be art a picture has to have something unique to the artist. Anybody could have put those pictures together, so in my opinion its not art but many people, i'm sure, will disagree.

Some forms of advertising could be art so long as its not just photos, it has to have something unique.

[Naturist4Ever]

not offensive?? hoho, make that my new avatar and see what happens! Too bad we can't spot the odd erection....

Of course it is offensive because
- it's voyeuristic
- sex education has little to do with genitalia ONLY
- what are "we" (not we, but any spectator) to learn from this?
- nude = sex
- etc.

Start thinking

[Richard Smith]

i think that many people will disagree with Naturist4Ever!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> not offensive?? hoho, make that my new avatar and see what happens! Too bad we can't spot the odd erection....

Of course it is offensive because
- it's voyeuristic
- sex education has little to do with genitalia ONLY
- what are "we" (not we, but any spectator) to learn from this?
- nude = sex
- etc.

Start thinking </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think that "nude=sex" i think you have to ask yourself the question "am i a real naturist?"

It is no more offensive and "voyeuristic" than a naturist beach is. The pictures are in no way provocative, and shouldn't be linked to sex in any way at all.

I certainly disagree with you.

[P.J.]

I'm not offended, but I think unappropriate would be the best way to describe a so-called piece of art which consists of photographs of genitals.

Some guys might feel inadequate, which is not healthy.

Then there is the censorship crowd. Although I think that there should be some standards when it comes to public displays from media to exhibits, I don't want to give the government an excuse to assert control and curtail our rights.

[Kev0]

"All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other works of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it. That the mere matter of a poem, for instance,
its subject, namely, its given incidents or situation -- that the mere matter
of a picture, the actual circumstances of an event, the actual topography of a
landscape -- should be nothing without the form, the spirit, of the handling,
that this form, this mode of handling, should become an end in itself, should
penetrate every part of the matter: this is what all art constantly strives
after, and achieves in different degrees."
- Walter Pater

Another argument would be that if it's in an art gallery and people look at it it's probably art.

So I'm calling it art.

Is it offensive? Not to me.

Can it be offensive and still be art? Of course.

Has it got anything to do with Naturism? No. Showing only the genitals is no better than drawing attention to them by hiding them under skimpy bits of cloth.

Is it a step towards body acceptance amongst textiles? I suggest it may be.

Or will it provoke an anti-nudity backlash? "Calm down dear, it's only an advert."


(If you regularly watch British commercial TV you might have grinned at that last phrase. Apologies to the 95% to whom it means nothing.)

[BEE-1]

Not an issue to me

[RCH44]

You are right. I do not find it offensive. I just don't get it. You never know what you will see in modern art.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GhostFreeHiker:
I do not find it offensive but it did make me lose my appitite. I hope thos folks did not have to pay for the show.

Its just body parts, but I'd have the same reaction to feet or elbows.

GFH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[alfredr]

Sex Education? No, more like Gender Education, and that could be a good thing: There is no standard; there is a range with room for all of us.

It appears that "Sex Education" is the title of the picture with the two women and the child, not the exhibit itself. Might make a difference in your perception of the whole thing.

[Big-Thinker]

I don't find it offensive, other than one or two of the images looking disturbingly child-like. Maybe this art fills a void by focusing on something that is hidden so much, as a taboo.

I think I've seen this before. It was actually created by the fashion/clothing company, United Colors of Benetton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benetton_Group), known for very controversial ads.

[NoodJuggler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">offensive </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not offensive but what is the purpose of just showing the pubic area with all the heads cut off? Now if it showed the rest of the body. Kind of stupid if you ask me..Cheers..NoodJuggler http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[fred950]

That wall was in no way offensive. Over-the-top? Yes, but then art should be a bit over the top. Witness 'David' or the Sistine Chapple.

My only Question, did the other side of the wall display thier butts?

[Ren]

Not always, but sometimes art is meant to challenge the taboo of society. In our society, we're pretty much "allowed" to see everything else without much controversy, but not the genitals. So, you get a whole swath of it in a deliberate presentation as this, and you almost remove the initial shock by the normality in the presentation of the many photos seen as one. Also, you have the many interpretations that can be derived from the presentation. Art makes us question and sometimes it's meant to shock and draw a reaction. I don't know if I find value in the presentation, but the fact that I've written this much on it is part of the impact art has.

[Naturist Mark]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/7860078993/inlineimg/Y/theartofbenneton.jpg
That's the most *****s I've seen since the last State of the Union.

[Naturist Mark]

Oh for heaven's sake. They butchered a harmless joke.

Now THAT's offensive.

[NakedGary]

Wonder if one could get the list of words the nanny CFF forum software filters so you wouldn't post them.

I never have seen the suppostly 7 words the FCC bans broadcastors from using, and no one seems to want to send them out even if they know them.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's the most *****s I've seen since the last State of the Union. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Naturist Mark,
I can't figure out the five missing words. Can you give me a (mild) clue, as I need a good laugh.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fred950:
y only Question, did the other side of the wall display thier butts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good one. That would have made the exhibit even better.

[NakedGary]

David77

This is starting to seem like hang-man!

I think maybe it starts with "C" but I don’t want to trigger the banned word filter.

Using the "P" word would be using an incorrect plural.

[Naturist Mark]

No 'c' word.

It is what happens to your finger when you touch a thorn.

Each star is a letter.

The first one is a 'P'
the second one is an 'r'
the third is an 'i'
etc.

That's the most *****s I've seen since the last State of the Union.

Mindless censorship is sometimes hilarious. I used to post on a board that transformed the former president's name to "Bill *****on". Apparently the word nazi software though the "c" word was spelled "clint".

[fred950]

MJ-KC, I took part in just such a project. A photographer/ artist took ten nude photos of my front and ten more of my butt. that was about 9 months ago. I have no idea if his project is finished or not or if my front/backside was used or not.

[au revoir]

It's like a buffet in a restaurant (popular in US): You are being offered with so many varieties and different foods.

It's good and tasty at the beginning, but if you eat too much - your stomach would be upset.

In everything we need just the right proportion. Eat too much is not good, but eat too less will make you hungry.

Again, like in the buffet, for some people this picture is too much and for some is not enough.

We cannot please every one, but ourselves.

Could we call it "buffet" then? lol

[gymnoboi]

I don't find this offensive in the least I not only consider it art but something that's pretty clever and unique.

[Luckyseven]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gymnoboi:
I don't find this offensive in the least I not only consider it art but something that's pretty clever and unique. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree. About 10 years ago I saw a film called Dicks which was as the name implies a film that just had a collection of shorts og dicks - it was a tongue in check film to counteract the way in the media only focussed on the female form. It wasn't serious but it made the point.

[Brendan]

I'm not particularly offended by the peice; but, I would understand to a degree why one would be. Afterall, it is art, and (I suppose in my humble opinion) it should serve a purpose or a point. It seems that this artist was merely searching for shock value by using genetalia. I'm a little hurt by that.
As for the shoe choice...when was this taken?

[Larry1]

I do not find it offensive but I do not know what the artist meaning was.