Kiddie porn my eye! Go back and take a look at Victorian photography--yes, there were nude children, but it wasn't anything about sex (we're talking about Victorians, after all). It was about the beautiful, simple, and organic nature of innocence. For crying out loud, stop being so puritanical. Try, at least, to be Victorian--that way, you'll be only 150 years behind the rest of us.
Okay, let's get some perspective here. The reference to "Victorians" is completely illogical, as the Victorian era was the most repressed yet the most perverted sexually in history. The Victorians were doing anything and everything, just not talking about it. The fact is, people see what they want in images. Some will see innocence, some will see pornography--it's all in conditioning by a person's environment, upbringing, experience, etc. combined with a person's mentality. Someone who is deviant and gets sexual pleasure from images of children doesn't have to see naked children to be aroused--think about it--do YOU have to see an attractive person naked to think they are desirable? no. I've never seen Ashton Kutcher or Keanu Reeves in the buff, but I'm certain they are sexy...get the point?
Is the intention is be creepy and make the viewer uncomfortable? If so, mission accomplished. If the intention was to be both sexy, beautiful, and strange, it failed because it only came across as sort of pretty until you become totally creeped out.
God I hate stumbling internet art. These are boring. Nouveau style Bratz dolls. It doesn't matter that whether it's porn or not, it's unimaginative-- that's what matters. People need more exposure, fawning over drawings like this is an awful lot like fawning over Twilight.
I thought these were just pretty. Pornography was not what came to mind looking at them. I actually thought the idea of them being pornographic was odd in the comments. Then other people chimed in.
In regards to the faces: I'd rather just appreciate the art for what it is (and not depreciate it for what it isn't) and what the artist intended. Isn't that how art is to be evaluated? If I'm wrong I don't want to be right.
I stumbled this and I find them to be very tasteful and very beautiful. Down the line, I'd definitely be interested in buying some of the art for my home. Forget all the critics, Audrey.
I must say I like these much more than the picture of the woman with a black eye in the small squares to the right. Even if it is only makeup it's still not a nice image and I'd rather look at something else.
Risque photos of pre-teen girls passed off as art... I was almost fooled until I got to the thinly veiled implied violence as evident in the pic with the tentacles and the one with the death's head moth.
It is art...no matter what anybody says..you dont have to like it...you dont have to understand it..art is just short for artistic...and the artist has complete control over what he can do and what he wants to do...who cares if you think its pornographic? who cares if it's not? i certainly dont....a person could smear shit on a wall and call it art....i wouldnt be a fan..but it is still art....and i would leave this person be because thats what he wants to do...im not going to bash someone about their art justbecause its not what i like. just saying.... ya kno?
It's generic; and I'm not even speaking about the fact that she always draws the same girl that "is always on her mind" which makes her a little creepy (I dont consider that kiddie porn; but she draws the same adolscent girl, she's obsessed about, over and over again?).
The artstyle is basically Art Nouveau meets Bratz.
http://www.audrey-kawasaki.com/
24 comments:
I absolutly love these. There is an innocent yet sensual beauty about these images. Amazing.
i've got wood...so maybe i should draw some chicks on it.
I love these and the above comment was brilliant.
it's kiddie porn!
kiddie porn lool
they are pretty and nicely illustrated but yeah lol does kind of look like kiddie porn :S
Kiddie porn my eye! Go back and take a look at Victorian photography--yes, there were nude children, but it wasn't anything about sex (we're talking about Victorians, after all). It was about the beautiful, simple, and organic nature of innocence. For crying out loud, stop being so puritanical. Try, at least, to be Victorian--that way, you'll be only 150 years behind the rest of us.
Okay, let's get some perspective here. The reference to "Victorians" is completely illogical, as the Victorian era was the most repressed yet the most perverted sexually in history. The Victorians were doing anything and everything, just not talking about it. The fact is, people see what they want in images. Some will see innocence, some will see pornography--it's all in conditioning by a person's environment, upbringing, experience, etc. combined with a person's mentality. Someone who is deviant and gets sexual pleasure from images of children doesn't have to see naked children to be aroused--think about it--do YOU have to see an attractive person naked to think they are desirable? no. I've never seen Ashton Kutcher or Keanu Reeves in the buff, but I'm certain they are sexy...get the point?
Yup, just what the world needed. More pictures of naked girls on the internet.
Is the intention is be creepy and make the viewer uncomfortable? If so, mission accomplished. If the intention was to be both sexy, beautiful, and strange, it failed because it only came across as sort of pretty until you become totally creeped out.
God I hate stumbling internet art. These are boring. Nouveau style Bratz dolls. It doesn't matter that whether it's porn or not, it's unimaginative-- that's what matters. People need more exposure, fawning over drawings like this is an awful lot like fawning over Twilight.
I don't think they're creepy at all. They're just interesting pieces of art. I like them =)
it's true. like the bratz doll version of Mucha's paintings. very unoriginal.
They all have the exact same face.
Vapid.
I thought these were just pretty. Pornography was not what came to mind looking at them. I actually thought the idea of them being pornographic was odd in the comments. Then other people chimed in.
In regards to the faces: I'd rather just appreciate the art for what it is (and not depreciate it for what it isn't) and what the artist intended. Isn't that how art is to be evaluated? If I'm wrong I don't want to be right.
I stumbled this and I find them to be very tasteful and very beautiful. Down the line, I'd definitely be interested in buying some of the art for my home. Forget all the critics, Audrey.
I must say I like these much more than the picture of the woman with a black eye in the small squares to the right. Even if it is only makeup it's still not a nice image and I'd rather look at something else.
Risque photos of pre-teen girls passed off as art... I was almost fooled until I got to the thinly veiled implied violence as evident in the pic with the tentacles and the one with the death's head moth.
soooo clear, the wood planks makes the drawing veritable. wonderfull
It is art...no matter what anybody says..you dont have to like it...you dont have to understand it..art is just short for artistic...and the artist has complete control over what he can do and what he wants to do...who cares if you think its pornographic? who cares if it's not? i certainly dont....a person could smear shit on a wall and call it art....i wouldnt be a fan..but it is still art....and i would leave this person be because thats what he wants to do...im not going to bash someone about their art justbecause its not what i like. just saying.... ya kno?
They're nice, but personally I'd like to see a change in expression. They all have the exact same look on their faces.
You people just don't get it.
It's generic;
and I'm not even speaking about the fact that she always draws the same girl that "is always on her mind" which makes her a little creepy
(I dont consider that kiddie porn; but she draws the same adolscent girl, she's obsessed about, over and over again?).
The artstyle is basically Art Nouveau meets Bratz.
Post a Comment