You Call That Art?

Here's an interesting story about a photo that has caused a controversy.

Seems a photo, owned by Elton John, shows a young girl with her legs spread apart. So it was seized and is being examined as possible child pornography.

Gee, you think?

Doesn't seem difficult to me -- there's really nothing "artistic" about a kid's private parts. Or an old person's privates, for that matter.

You'll hear the whacked-out "arts community" defend it as "art," I'm sure, but the entire standard of "art" has become really low these days.

Try this: Next time you use the bathroom, look in the bowl. Is it "art"? No, it's human waste. Yes, I know you made it yourself, but so do the rest of us. Now, take a picture of what's in the bowl. Is that "art"? Nope. That's a picture of human waste.

You can make the photo black and white, or put a flower next to the bowl, add a clown or even decorate it with confetti ... it's still just a pile of human waste, a far cry from what used to be considered "art."

Seems to me that standards for "art" have gotten so loose nowadays that pretty much anything anyone "creates," even if it's just taking a picture of some inanimate object doing nothing other than being an inanimate object, is suddenly "art."

Methinks it's just a way for lazy, untalented people to claim they have a profession.

As a side note ... artists for ages have painted pictures of naked people, I know. But that doesn't make it "art." If a musician hums a melody, is that a song? If a poet writes a grocery list, is that prose?

Nah. I think artists who paint nudes and call them "art" were just looking for a way to get some lady naked. Hey, I'm not criticizing them, that's a lot easier than the hoops we used to have jump through in college to see the same thing. I could have saved myself a great deal of time (and possibly some points on my GPA) had I just professed to want to see them naked for "art's sake," instead of that whole "I just want to be closer to you" load we use to try.