RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV

RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

sirsholly -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 9:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly sure it would, if he was flipping through the channels. If he were exposed to the human body (which is normal and natural), i would very much prefer it be viewed with a parent, rather than by himself, wondering "what's dat?" I am a little surprised by that. I just never left the children alone to flip channels at that age (three). The remote was high out of reach, apart from flipping, it's a health risk. Saying that though, I never had the TV on unless it was TillyTomandTiny at 4pm. Like beth said before, why are children at that age (in the UK non school age would be up to the age of 4) watching TV at that time alone or not? the.dark. we have satellite tv. The lower channels (2-13) are all acceptable...he can flip all he wants. From channels 14 up to the triple digits there is nothing but static (our cable starts at one hundred and something). He is too young to do anything with the remote other than hit the big red button that advances the channels... then he goes in the other direction when he hits the static. As to why he watches TV at that age...it is to keep him occupied while mom is busy. [:)]

RCdc -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 9:59:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly As to why he watches TV at that age...it is to keep him occupied while mom is busy. [:)] But what did children do before there was TV? I am hijacking my own thread now....[:D] I don't mean to question the way you bring up a child holly, it's just all alien to me to segregate children from me. I just don't get why children have to be excluded from chores. If I cooked, so did they - at least pretend cooking (lordy I spent tons on flour). When I painted, so did they. If I cleaned, so did they. Or at least they sat playing in the same room as me. I never had a play pen or anything like that and I certainly wouldn't have left them in front of a TV alone. At three, mine could have easily opened the back of the control and remove batteries, even pick at buttons, which could be swallowed. Plus this is at lunch time. TV was a no go when eating. It's too distracting and for us, it's a family time to sit down and spend time together. the.dark.

sirsholly -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:28:14 AM)
quote: Posts: 6272 Joined: 5/29/2007 From: .inshadows. Status: offline quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly As to why he watches TV at that age...it is to keep him occupied while mom is busy. But what did children do before there was TV? I am hijacking my own thread now.... I don't mean to question the way you bring up a child holly, it's just all alien to me to segregate children from me. I just don't get why children have to be excluded from chores. generally he is with me, but keep in mind that this is a working farm and there are some things i just cannot do with him around...feeding the cattle is a big one. The electric fence is always on (to turn it off means a long trek to the barn) and i cannot risk him being close to me when i am tossing the hay bales. Also, anything that has to do with the well is off limits (he loves water, so the well is kept a secret ) Generally these things can wait till hubby is home, but if he works overtime i have little choice. As to the safe chores...dishes, laundry, gardening, etc...he is right there..ready and willing to "help" [:)]

ienigma777 -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:36:14 AM)
There were a lot of 'Drawing' shows on TV, Years ago, one show was 'Drawing with Jon Gnagy', wherein he demonstrated drawing in perpectives, still life, fruit baskets, seascapes etc. Sponsored by a very large art supply store, Wm.Brown & co. out of NYC. William Alexander had a great show demonstrating his wet on wet oil painting, all sorts of subjects, but no nudes. If one wants to learn to draw, you do not need a Nude person to learn from...that would be for the more advanced and serious student and/or practioner. Plainly, this nude show is an experiment to 'draw' in the ratings. Oh, proof read this for me will ya, sirsholly. Thanx

GreedyTop -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:39:24 AM)
a still life, etc is no preparation for drawing a PERSON

RCdc -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:46:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ienigma777 There were a lot of 'Drawing' shows on TV, Years ago, one show was 'Drawing with Jon Gnagy', wherein he demonstrated drawing in perpectives, still life, fruit baskets, seascapes etc. Sponsored by a very large art supply store, Wm.Brown & co. out of NYC. William Alexander had a great show demonstrating his wet on wet oil painting, all sorts of subjects, but no nudes. We have channels with programmes dedicated to all forms. quote: If one wants to learn to draw, you do not need a Nude person to learn from...that would be for the more advanced and serious student and/or practioner. Tosh. It's about having a go. You think only serious students want or can draw people? Some people can draw people, but couldn't draw an apple if they tried. quote: Plainly, this nude show is an experiment to 'draw' in the ratings. I doubt that. The time it's on and what it's up against pretty much blows that theory out the water. the.dark.

Arpig -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:48:50 AM)
No problem with the subject matter, no problem with the timeslot, and no problem with a UM seeing it. Nudity and the human body are nothing to be afraid of.

sirsholly -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:49:05 AM)
quote: If one wants to learn to draw, you do not need a Nude person to learn from...that would be for the more advanced and serious student and/or practioner. really? it seems to me drawing the human form is taught in most art classes, both beginning and advanced. And it is a hell of alot more interesting than drawing a bowl of fruit

GreedyTop -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 10:51:50 AM)
and like I said.. drawing a still life, for instance, is NO prpe for drawing a human body. Apples etc do not have the musculature, the fluidity that a human body does. I can do a still life (and have done)... but I am still stymied by the human form....

calamitysandra -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 11:10:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly ...it would be a poor reflection of my parenting that i allow my child to see it. Why would it reflect badly on your parenting skills to let him see a nude body? sure it would, if he was flipping through the channels. If he were exposed to the human body (which is normal and natural), i would very much prefer it be viewed with a parent, rather than by himself, wondering "what's dat?" Okay, that makes it clear. Yes, a small one simply flipping channels is really not desiarable. I thought you were saying that allowing a child to see a naked body would make one a bad parent. Sorry.

NihilusZero -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 12:22:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark So - seeing as the programme is advertised as a life drawing class - would it shock you? There's no nudity in real life! That's just propaganda pushed by heathen liars. Protect the children!

Marc2b -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/7/2009 2:00:37 PM)
To some people, simply nudity is pornographic and offensive – an attitude that we can thank our Christian heritage for. There is nothing I can do about that but, as Level pointed out, there are means of blocking such horrific sights as a bare boob from appearing on one’s television. The problem is that some people are not content with keeping images of bare boobs off of their televisions – they have to save the rest of us from such moral contamination. . The art center where I work has life drawing sessions once a month and despite the fact that it is behind closed doors, we still get moral busybodies throwing a fit about it. I agree that it is preferable for a young child to see such things with a parent who can then explain the difference between art and pornography (the former celebrates the subject matter, the latter denigrates it – granted, this is a very subjective, personal definition).

ienigma777 -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 12:20:06 AM)
I beg to differ Lady...drawing is drawing, the basics of shadow and shape are still applied, textures, perspectives are still demanded in still life. The advanced step is then drawing people; with the forshortening (perspective) applied. But hey, for those who have no knowledge of art...better to run (perferrbly with sissors) than to crawl, and walk. But seeing a robust, muscular, man or woman, naked is better than an apple. Right? I never heard of anyone talking about masturbating to the image of an apple, or a watermelon.

GreedyTop -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 12:24:40 AM)
show me a picture of an apple, reclining, with the musculature of a slightly arched back, and arm draped lightly across a hip.... hair, in waves across shoulders, head tilted just so... Hey.. as far as the masturbation bit... there's a kink for everyone.. just because you havent HEARD of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I wont say that there are not some people who take art classes that masturbate to images of the life models, but I'd hazard a guess that far fewer do it than you seem to think....

ienigma777 -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 12:30:39 AM)
yes, and you always will be...there are schools which has an assortment of Plaster Statues, some very famous scluptures, cast in plaster, for students and those that which to perfect their drawing skills. Hugh cats of just eyes, ears, mouths, noses...Vasser University had a most astounding array, collection of Plaster castings, of the human form, but the bimbo professor decided they didn't need the casts and had them destroyed. If you were seriously involved in perfecting your art and expertise in depicting the human form, a plaster cast of, let's say the hand, would come in very handy(pardon the intended pun), when learning the shape, veins, and general structure....at the given time...than getting someone to strip down for you. In fact, one can get a full size mirror or two, or three, and strip down and draw from the image therein reflection.

GreedyTop -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 12:38:50 AM)
of course. Those are options. But the plaster cast? It's just another still life. There is something about the vibrancy of a live person that an artist truly interested in capturing the human form strives to catch, and that can ONLY be captured by a live model. Enjoy your lifeless models, dude. some of us want to try and capture LIFE.

HatesParisHilton -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 12:57:08 AM)
"If one wants to learn to draw, you do not need a Nude person to learn from...that would be for the more advanced and serious student and/or practioner. " and "yes, and you always will be...there are schools which has an assortment of Plaster Statues, some very famous scluptures, cast in plaster, for students and those that which to perfect their drawing skills. Hugh cats of just eyes, ears, mouths, noses...Vasser University had a most astounding array, collection of Plaster castings, of the human form, but the bimbo professor decided they didn't need the casts and had them destroyed. If you were seriously involved in perfecting your art and expertise in depicting the human form, a plaster cast of, let's say the hand, would come in very handy(pardon the intended pun), when learning the shape, veins, and general structure....at the given time...than getting someone to strip down for you. In fact, one can get a full size mirror or two, or three, and strip down and draw from the image therein reflection. " sorry, but unless you are at a professional level as myself with a CV/resume of PUBLISHED ART over 4 pages long (and that's the edited resume) and have bee paid over $1000 back in 1994 dollars for ONE PAGE of art based on the human figure with payment tendered NET 3 (as in 3 CALENDAR days, not "business" days) then you really are NOT not in a position to make such statements. I am. and I can also tell you that people with raw talent that NEED show ike this many times CANNPOT afford to leave the house in terms of time or money to go to even a Community College, and sometimes, they are semi-crippled or have MS but a lot of talent and REQUIRE a programme of this type to have a REMOTE chance of having their skill equal their innate talent, and talent is innate, like HEIGHT, but skill is NOT. AGAIN, unless you have been a PROFESSIONAL figurative artist, you do NOT know what is required to become proficient and cannot back up the (fallacious) statement that ANY form of reproduction of the model (be it photographic or digital or anything else) can in ANY way be a substitute for live models, ienegma. It's like an artist alley douch talking about what it takes to get published by Vertigo or Dark Horse when he's only done xeroxed ashcans given away at DieoCon. Sorry.

ienigma777 -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 12:58:24 AM)
As most times Marc2b you are quite correct. The sueto christians find any form of nudity sinful. They project onto society their form of morale. Michigan is not only in the rust belt but in the bible belt as well. There was a billboard, advert for a radio station...it depicted a young girl, laying on her stomach, on the beach, and a portable radio aside her head, she was topless, with a towel over her ass, right at the two dimples on the curve of the back. And the dialogue...where ever you go, we are there... with the station call-letters.....or something to that effect. So, there it is, along the highway...the outrage, the picketing from the church groups was astounding, radio, tv coverage, banners, posters, all howling at the removal of the hidious, sinful, pornographic image...the radio station could not have bought the publicity these church goers did with their outrage. It was going to be a court issue...but the radio station relented and had painted on the girl, from the nape of her neck to her ankles, a beach towel; with the caption...we got you covered Flint. and the call-letters. The church was satisified and less than a month later the offending image totally disappeared. Oh, Coppertone adverts were all over, the little girl, the puppy tugging at her panties, her ass exposed......you know the one, ...not a peep.So, what's the big deal....I mean, the nude body can be displayed with the right pose as to obscure the genitaila of the models. But...simply being nude, with nothing exosed fully up in your face, as it were, lets the mind conjure it's fiflthy, nasty, dirty, sorrid, lecherous, sinful images.....and the mind is what we as christians must control, prohibing any lustful temptation to be made manifest in the body. This alledged Nude Drawing TV show strikes me as some sort of test of the free speech thingie. A challenge as it were. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there has been all sorts of Drawing TV shows..still life, and people, heads, front, side, bodies, fully clothed, in costume. Challenge?????? Maybe.

ienigma777 -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 1:06:09 AM)
TOSH...look, if you are a novice, and want to draw a person, you don't need a nude model. I wish you would really not twist what I say to suit some obsure arguement for sake of arguement senario of yours. If a novice wants to draw, he/she can copy from comic books, if they wish. If they can conjole a friend to strip down...okay, so what.

ienigma777 -> RE: Nude on Lunchtime TV (7/8/2009 1:09:27 AM)
What the hell are you talking about????????

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375