I can’t afford a hat 
1 Like
One of the problems here is the f**ked-up nature of art today, where so-called “artists” can do something stupid like this and actually get it into a “art” gallery. I think the perpetrator is trying to cash in on notoriety. He was probably drooling for a lawsuit so it would get in the papers (or, even better, on the inner-tubes) and give him some ill-deserved publicity (from what I see from photos shown here, they are pretty pedestrian).
Right up (down?) there with elephant dung art, the piss-christ, and painting with one’s vagina.
2 Likes
Your windswept hair looks better without one anyway.
At least you have an eyepatch.
1 Like
Why would you ignore that fact?
So if I’m in a park taking pictures of the flowers (which I actually do) and someone’s kid is somewhere in the background of the shot, would I be a sex offender if convicted under such a law?
1 Like
Succinctly define this word you use, “art.”
2 Likes
No. Context and intent certainly matter, as does what you do with the picture in many cases. That’s why I think rather than a blanket rule against any “public” photography that may involve children, one has to look at many factors. The below photo is both newsworthy and art, and in no way child pornography. I don’t think the photographer was doing anything wrong. I think taking a picture of a similar child that you happen to spy through an open window taking a shower wouldn’t be of the same ilk. Again–I’m with the judges in this case, but I certainly could see cases where the right to take pictures of things in full public view, and the protection of minors, create a conflict that would have to be judged case-by-case.
That was the point I was trying to make: why go for the esoteric argument when there is a lot of legal precedent for convictions due to taking surreptitious photos of children?
I have to sign waivers for almost anyone to photograph my children in public places, including newspaper reporters, camp counselors, and even artists (yes, I’ve had to at least verbally agree for several art students along the way).
This guy is going to make money off of “models” who did not consent and were not recompensed in any way for their “work”. There’s got to be some way to make him pay, you know?
3 Likes
Visible light, in turn, typically only gets reflected from the surfaces. Not much of a difference for the imaging sensor, though - the photons come in and are captured and sensed.
So 400-700 nm. My bad for being aware of common imaging technologies that work off that range.
Thank you.
The average person is so dumb and unaware of the foundations of physics that this proposition sounds scary.
It looks the other way from my perspective. Apparently there is some hidden symmetry there? 
At least that. (Hey, we’re arguing for the same side. 
)
2 Likes
In my experience you don’t usually have floor to ceiling windows on a ground floor residence in a city. I mentioned ignoring it in anticipation of someone responding, “they don’t have windows like that on the first floor,” and missing the point of my question.
Excellent point!
Do you read anything, beyond headlines? Because beyond idle speculations about an artist that are dismissed by a cursory reading if any of the links in the original post, your other examples shows an awareness of the at works that is on par with the NSA trying to ban encryption. Either willfully disingenuous, or monumentally ignorant, our desperately hoping we are all dumb enough to believe you.
I’m sorry but I don’t find the artist’s images all that interesting (but that’s just my opinion). They are getting notoriety on this site in part due to the privacy issue, which regardless of the legality, just creeps me out (and a lot of other readers).
Sometimes I think context has begun to outweigh what the darn thing looks like, which to my way of thinking, is unbalanced. There may be good ways to explore privacy issues via visual arts, but I don’t think this is the way. Looking into someone’s huge open window on the first floor is one thing; capturing and putting it up in an art gallery without permission just seems like a violation.
1 Like
This entire “discussion” has devolved into such overwhelming stupidity it’s impossible to rescue.
2 Likes
Maybe you’re not seeing it for the art piece it is.
8 Likes
Cool, can you just show us your art credentials and then we’ll value your baseless and misinformed opinion.
So wrong on so many levels. Your comment, not the art.
“Naked” is bullshit. She wasn’t wearing a top. You see kids at the beach in that state of dress all the time. In non-prudish countries you see adults sunbathe topless all the time. These kinds of “teh children!” comments themselves creep me out because it really says more about the person who perceives a photograph as inappropriate than anything else. It wasn’t pornographic, until creeps viewed it as such.
You don’t need anyone’s permission (or be related to someone) to take pictures of things that are happening in public view. Sometimes it’s nice to ask, but it’s a pleasantry rather than a requirement.
For his own benefit? Insofar as an artist exhibits to make a living you are right but they are also contributing to the progress of contemporary art. We all benefit.
Your sentence could easily be rephrased to blame the parents, just as effectively.
‘A family let their naked child run around in front of full-height, uncovered windows in the middle of one of the most densely populated cities in the world through their own laziness’
4 Likes
Just so we know what we’re talking about here, these are the only ones I’ve found that some people might take issue with
You can see 28 other thumbs on the gallery website, none of which are any “worse” than these.
http://www.saulgallery.com/artists/arne-svenson/neighbors
1 Like
You know the crucifix in piss thing actually was art by any reasonable definition, right? Something doesn’t have to be unoffensive to be art.
1 Like
I’m willing to go on record here to say that I’ve never heard of that before, but it sounds neat! I doubt one could vary the effects enough to make a career out of it, but why not do this? Just make certain the paint is suitably non-toxic.
