Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
I dont think this was expression, just a little kid. We did see peoples guts and brains hanging out on tv. No FCC rules for that? How about the starving bodies in concectration camps>?
its just odd given that we have no problem showing the reality of war, but wont show a naked child.
|
Perhaps it has something to with what to preserve and what to get rid of. Showing the actual horrors of war, as gruesome and offensive as it may be to human sensibility, and even because of that, is, I guess, an attempt to persuade us against perpetrating those horrors again. Covering our nakedness may, at its deepest motivation, be an attempt to preserve as "sacred" that most personal expression and identity of who we are. Rather than just another, common piece of meat, a choicer cut here and there, to be lusted at or rejected by all, and no more important, ultilmately than any other, we may wish to be unique, not to be lost in a sea of repetitive flesh that becomes too commonplace, unspecial to the seeker of beauty. Nudity in art is impersonal, an expression of beauty found in the human body. Nudity in porn is meant to arouse sexual response. The non-artistic, nonsexual photo of a naked boy is a very personal depiction of an actual, individual, human being, and evokes an empathetic response. That is we personally feel the vulnerability of his nakedness and don't view the picture as art or porn, but as an exposure of our most personal self.
Just a guess. I'm sure everyone has a personal rather than a societal opinion.