Veronika writes

'Henson isn't a pedeophile. ' Pimps are not prostitutes either. They just make money out of using others. Using kids is as low as you can go.

"Now back to art, what I find really boring is when some learned pratt stands up and orates on the subliminal meaning behind Picassos cubist representations or Salvador Dali’s obsessions with everything, especially his nanny. "

That the contraversial becomes elevated to cult status, like in a religion, is also the reason today that follows the controversial. The back-door there is that it is art.

I am certain those painters had something more to their work than just the controversial, and they remain unequalled, but that has nothing to do with nudity and naked bodies - they could paint any subject and still be great. If our naked girlie cameraman can perform great shots with fully clothed girls and palm trees - then call him an artist. The trees won't be offended.

I think Allison Croggon bequeathed us the ultimate statement of hypocrisy from the Hensonite pseudo-art brahmins, pedo nurturers and their more furtive "Uranian" sidekicks. It's a right racket going on now, and the pretensions to aesthetic sensibility and "insight beyond the masses" seem to have never before been so outlandish (probably a result of more “user pays” education and the greater disparities between workers on the one hand and inheritors and parasite-speculators on the other).

Relying wholly on an unexplored and untested principle of “free expression” cliche, Croggon blatantly and repeatedly censored blog comments from anti-kiddie porn activist Gregory Carlin!

See: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7202906&postID=8771780408060951035&isPopup=true
and http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7202906&postID=6162701458212353063&isPopup=true

IamJoseph “That the contraversial becomes elevated to cult status, like in a religion, is also the reason today that follows the controversial. The back-door there is that it is art.”

Keep reading these sentences and I keep coming up with the same question

Is it poor grammar or is it simply gibberish?

gibberish seems to prevail.

“I am certain those painters had something more to their work than just the controversial”

It depends on who you are, what your values, beliefs and expectations are.

I found this interesting comment on a website http://www.salvadordaliexperts.com/salvadordalicontroversy.html

“For centuries, those with talent, have had to put up with those that have no talent,”

What IamJoseph is doing is confirming himself as someone who, if ever it mattered, is obviously one of those with “no talent”

“If our naked girlie cameraman can perform great shots with fully clothed girls and palm trees, then call him an artist.”

I can relate that to some others, who took it to themselves to prescribe what the artistic values were which every artist (not only of the visual but literary and music too) had to conform with.

“Socialist Realism was proclaimed the approved method for Soviet artists in all media.”

“The aim of the new creative method was 'to depict reality in its revolutionary development';”

Ask Solzhenitsyn , Pasternak, Shostakovich and thousands of other individuals, to say nothing of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose religious icons and buildings were desecrated in the name of “socialist realism” about IamJoseph’s expectation to define artistic constraints and the idea that

some authoritarian bureaucracy must hold the power to decide the style and content of works of art, including levels of nudity, for which artists must conform, under penalty of prison and worse.

Oscar Wilde said “the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”

I suspect IamJoseph is not a cynic and wonder what ‘philosophical’ values he does hold, if any?.

For whilst he clearly knows the value of nothing,

nor does he know its price.

And the price is one of the most expensive

It is 'personal liberty'.

mil-observer you've basically been reduced to a repetition of 'pedo' terminology, which you're now applying to anything and everything that you disagrees with. you are rambling and it's hard to follow some of your comments (what the hell is a "Uranian", is "insight beyond the masses" and how is free expression "unexplored and untested"...)?

"Isuspect IamJoseph is not a cynic and wonder what ‘philosophical’ values he does hold, if any?"

There is a right and wrong, and that this does not alter with art or eye of the beholder - runaway paths of retreat. Art is not anything, nor is everything art, nor is anything above all laws, nor do we need to be shown children's underparts to show there is something more than meets the eye.

Nude girly children may bring gasps and bravo's from some - even when it is clearly not artistic, and this has no allignment with Stalinist Russia nor medevial Europe's ways - these also did the same to all, thus its nothing o do with art or free speech, etc. A nude child's photograph as art just falls below the level of all art requirements and confuses it with something else: are you sure its the art that you see? I assure u I'm no prude either.