P3D art

["ron labbe" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Al Razutis writes:

>One of the purposes of art is to 'shake up the norm' (and not just make
'pretty pictures' to hang on the wall or present at shows), but violating
what is deemed 'acceptable content'.<

If "art" is pornographic, it will certainly shake up the "norm". Of course,
the question is of what constitutes pornography...  but, if "art" is
distasteful to the public, they should not be obliged to pay for it- or see
it.
One still cannot go nude, or perform sex acts in public- even in the name of
"art"- but for how long? Why does "alternative content" generally mean
include nudity or sex? (I'm not interested in starting a morality thread
here on Photo3D, by the way... an interesting debate, nonetheless.)



ron


ron labbe

studio3D
30 glendale st
maynard, ma 01754              978 897-4221 fon/fax

mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://studio3d.com