I guess I just don't see the harm.
I wouldn't shield a 10 year old's eyes from the reference picture, should it be shown at an art museum near me.
So, logically it makes no sense to care that it was used as a reference by Disney for a cartoon version that is absent anything that made the original artwork scandalous (in it's own time).
And that a disney animator might giggle at the inside joke - well so what?
Finally, I would have no problem explaining this piece of art to a 10 year old child. Although, I suspect I might find it difficult to find a 10 year old child that was actively interested in this piece of art, regardless of it's 200 year old scandalous nature.
provocative dandy porn or a children's movie?
Forum rules
- Please use the forum attachment system for jam images, or link to the CG site specific to the Jam.
- Mark threads containing nudity in inlined images as NSFW
- Read The rules post for specifics
- Please use the forum attachment system for jam images, or link to the CG site specific to the Jam.
- Mark threads containing nudity in inlined images as NSFW
- Read The rules post for specifics
-
PieceOfSkunk
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:42 pm
- Location: DFW TX USA
Anyone ever see this (nsfw)? The story is that adults see two people having sex, but children see dolphins, because their minds aren't attuned to pick up the sexual innuendo. It's the same thing with this picture. The kids aren't going to see any of the innuendo, they'd just see a pretty picture. Of course, since the actual painting isn't being used in the movie, that's not even an issue.
-
Rkolter
- Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
- Posts: 16399
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
- Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.
- Contact:
McDuffies mentioned just this picture several posts back. He didn't link it though. That's pretty cool.
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."
Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
I have that picture in a book of optical illusions. I wasn't much impressed by the effect since I saw the people and the dolphins right away, but then I showed it to my parents and they couldn't find the dolphins at all. Even after I pointed them out. I had to mask off the rest of the picture with my hands and show them one dolphin at the time.
The same guy also did a couple in a rose but it's a little more obvious since there's some cast off clothes around the flower.
The same guy also did a couple in a rose but it's a little more obvious since there's some cast off clothes around the flower.
"Yeah, that's the bridge pier (expletive). I thought it was the center. Oh (expletive)." ~ From the transcript of the recording device on board the ship which struck the San Franciso Bay Bridge last year, causing a 50,000 gallon oil spill.
-
Dracomax
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:13 pm
- Location: in a defective ficional universe
- Contact:
I'm glad somebody finally recognised it. dispensing my wisdom to you folks gets tiring after a while.The Neko wrote:
YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. ARGUMENT OVER, GUYS! HE SOLVED ALL OUR ISSUES!
the point was that the main argument itself was going "that's related to sex--""nobody without training in art history would ever connect the two pictures, let alone draw that conclusion""but--it's related to sex!"
anyone who goes looking for things to object to will eventually find them. I for one, think that if you had the time to frame by frame watch lion king the first time to discover the pollen that (kind of) looks like the word sex, you may have to much time on your hands. but hey, if you want to be silly, fine.
but honsetly, if that is the worst thing in the movie, 5then it's exceptionally tame. personally, I'd be more worried about whether or not the movie is violent than if it contains a heavily veiled reference to sex.
You and TRI are the crazy mad ones.~Cope
Give a man a fire, keep him warm for a day; set a man on fire, keep him warm for life.~unknown
-
Cope
- Incompetent Monster
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Masked man of mystery
- Contact:
MY CHILDHOOD INNOCENCE IS GONE.
I can't see the dolphins. 
"I've always been fascinated by failure!" -Charlie Brown
Re: MY CHILDHOOD INNOCENCE IS GONE.
visually isolate the grey part of the head areas from there you can see all of them just follow it down from thereCope wrote:I can't see the dolphins.
NJ: "You know the drill, you're AWESOME!"
I am the artist formerly known as M2
-
Cope
- Incompetent Monster
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Masked man of mystery
- Contact:
Splashy, splashy!
Oh! There they are.
I feel like less of a dirty old man now.
I feel like less of a dirty old man now.
"I've always been fascinated by failure!" -Charlie Brown
-
Robin Pierce
- The Establishment (Moderator)
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:48 am
- Location: Should we check the internet? :S
- Contact:
-
Nervous Spy
- For your Eyes Only
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:26 pm
- Contact:
Why would that be NSFW? When your boss happens to walk in on you, point out the dolphins - and ask: "Why, do you see anything else there?"PieceOfSkunk wrote:Anyone ever see this (nsfw)?
My new avatar is by someone who holds many <a href="http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/">Indefensible Positions</a>.
-
Rkolter
- Destroyer of Words (Moderator)
- Posts: 16399
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:34 am
- Location: It's equally probable that I'm everywhere.
- Contact:
I saw the dolphins just fine.
The rest of you are such derenged perverts.
The rest of you are such derenged perverts.
Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."
Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"
-
McDuffies
- Bob was here (Moderator)
- Posts: 29957
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Serbia
- Contact:
I see not only a couple and dolphins, but also a sailing boat.
You gotta understand the guy, though, he clicked on the thread that had "porn" in title, and what he got? ART! No wonder he's frustrated.The Neko wrote:YOU ARE THE SMARTEST PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. ARGUMENT OVER, GUYS! HE SOLVED ALL OUR ISSUES!dracomax wrote:AAAAHHHHHRRGGGHHH!!!!! stupidity, and irrational argument! I can't take any more!
for the record, roccoco=EW! much better work was being done right before and right after.
Heh heh, as I said, peeking up girl's skirt was a prank boys were doing in my school ever since the third grade or so. Interest in oposite sex predates actual sexual interest, first there is curiousity, boys want to know what's up there, since it's some kind of forbidden zone and all. I figure that kids would understand this painting, yeah, but different from us, in a more naive, desexualized way.rkolter wrote:Finally, I would have no problem explaining this piece of art to a 10 year old child. Although, I suspect I might find it difficult to find a 10 year old child that was actively interested in this piece of art, regardless of it's 200 year old scandalous nature.
Pervert.mcDuffies wrote:also a sailing boat.
What creeps me out slightly about that painting 'though, is that the guy's face reminds me of Tintin.
"Yeah, that's the bridge pier (expletive). I thought it was the center. Oh (expletive)." ~ From the transcript of the recording device on board the ship which struck the San Franciso Bay Bridge last year, causing a 50,000 gallon oil spill.