Controversial Helnwein for Waterford

mike65

Roffles -John O' Connor the Munster Express just described Marilyn Manson as a she!

Mike.

Mia belle

My 6 year old daughter has seen most of these images and was fine with them. She asked loads of questions, and I explained as best I could. What the pictures were representing etc. I was ok with her seeing them, my children are so blessed to live the life they do, they also understand though, that other children around the world aren't so lucky. She has also seen the ad's on t.v of starving children, and those ads upset her more to be honest than the pictures did. Maybe because in her mind the ad's seemed more real than a still photo.
So many children are suffering in our world today, I am only gratefull that my daughters are looking at these photos, and are not any of the children who are sent out to war .

Ri na hEireann

Mia belle wrote: »

My 6 year old daughter has seen most of these images and was fine with them. She asked loads of questions, and I explained as best I could. What the pictures were representing etc. I was ok with her seeing them, my children are so blessed to live the life they do, they also understand though, that other children around the world aren't so lucky. She has also seen the ad's on t.v of starving children, and those ads upset her more to be honest than the pictures did. Maybe because in her mind the ad's seemed more real than a still photo.
So many children are suffering in our world today, I am only gratefull that my daughters are looking at these photos, and are not any of the children who are sent out to war .

All kids will react differently I suppose. Some will cry or scream and others will have a genuine curiosity about them. I'm still undecided about the one in Red Sq for instance but I fully understand what's trying to be done

Sully

The chap organising this was interviewed on TodayFM. Apparently this has reached national papers and one mother complained about her kids seeing them and reacting to them at the age of 8 (might be one of the posters here, her story seems familar). The girl interviewing wasnt the best, but he didnt really answer her questions straight out.

His point is that there is plenty of violent images seen in various media - news (paper, tv), video games (GTA springs to mind), programs on TV (like Fair City, The Simpsons etc) and that its only really one or two of his pictures that are upsetting a small few people and that most are in full support. He said that the idea behind having it in public is to make people see it and get people talking about it. He wants to make people talk to their children about these things, and while he apologises for upsetting anybody, he stands by his decission to put them up.

I agree with him tbh. People are overreacting - there not nearly as bad as some of the stuff on TV. Plus, I dont think an 8 year old is to young to see these things and I have my doubts people much younger understand it to even react (I dont have kids, so I could be wrong but iv been in town and seen plenty of people of various ages arround it with not a care in the world).

Also, its not lazy art.

christophicus

mike65 wrote: »

Roffles -John O' Connor the Munster Express just described Marilyn Manson as a she!

Mike.

BWHAHAhahahahaha Brilliant, it just goes to show how illinformed people are about the Artist, the pieces and his reasoning behind them.

sunnyse

Sully wrote: »

I agree with him tbh. People are overreacting - there not nearly as bad as some of the stuff on TV. Plus, I dont think an 8 year old is to young to see these things and I have my doubts people much younger understand it to even react (I dont have kids, so I could be wrong but iv been in town and seen plenty of people of various ages arround it with not a care in the world).

Also, its not lazy art.

I think you're wrong sully although it is of course your opinion. I have a soon to be 5 year old and he knows exactly what a kid with blood all over his head looks like and it does freak him out a bit.
And as for there being worse on telly, that's true maybe for the 8 or 10 year olds but my 4 year old does NOT watch fair city or even the Simpson's and he definitely doesn't play grand theft auto.
I just think it's not the right place for this particular picture, in front of McDonald's of all places where there tends to be so many small kids.

I think when you have small kids your sense of protection towards them changes and while I would have defended this type of art with my last breath a few years ago I guess my priorities have changed.
I know it sounds really condescending but if you don't have small kids then I don't think it's fair to belittle or try to reduce the feelings of parents about these photos.

people just need to relax abit,

You cant wrap your child up in bubble wrap for ever you know!

you see far worse on TV or Playstation games these days and you dont see parents having a winge

I get to choose on telly or even PlayStation when MY child is ready for this kind of violence and I think it's my right also to complain if I feel that right to decide is being violated

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

I think you're wrong sully although it is of course your opinion. I have a soon to be 5 year old and he knows exactly what a kid with blood all over his head looks like and it does freak him out a bit.

Well if your child knows about it, then its time it was explained to him properly to avoid problems like this. Thats just how I see it anyway, and that's what the artist is trying to get people todo.

And as for there being worse on telly, that's true maybe for the 8 or 10 year olds but my 4 year old does NOT watch fair city or even the Simpson's and he definitely doesn't play grand theft auto.
I just think it's not the right place for this particular picture, in front of McDonald's of all places where there tends to be so many small kids.

So your son has NEVER seen any violence on TV and this is the first time he saw it? Fair play to you for keeping your child hidden away from such imagery - I would have thought that was a very hard job.

Location wise... well, that's what he was aiming for I didn't think small kids would understand it to be upset, but fair enough - I guess it does. So maybe its now time for people to actually think outside the box and explain to the kids whats outside of this world we live in?

I think when you have small kids your sense of protection towards them changes and while I would have defended this type of art with my last breath a few years ago I guess my priorities have changed.
I know it sounds really condescending but if you don't have small kids then I don't think it's fair to belittle or try to reduce the feelings of parents about these photos.

Perhaps so, but I think I wouldn't react as angry as some have. Id simply explain it to my kid and try to gradual educate him/her about about these type of things. The closest I have come to a kid is my nephew who is only a baby but I will try to educate him gently as he grows up.

I get to choose on telly or even PlayStation when MY child is ready for this kind of violence and I think it's my right also to complain if I feel that right to decide is being violated

Your not with him 24/7 so I have my doubts about if he actually does not EVER see anything like that (ie blood). But maybe so. Regardless, maybe its time to listen to the message being sent out, no?

sunnyse

I guess you're always right sully, it must be your vast years of experience:rolleyes:
Come back to me when you have small kids and we'll see if you feel the same way.

Sully wrote: »

Well if your child knows about it, then its time it was explained to him properly to avoid problems like this. Thats just how I see it anyway, and that's what the artist is trying to get people todo.



So your son has NEVER seen any violence on TV and this is the first time he saw it? Fair play to you for keeping your child hidden away from such imagery - I would have thought that was a very hard job.

Location wise... well, that's what he was aiming for I didn't think small kids would understand it to be upset, but fair enough - I guess it does. So maybe its now time for people to actually think outside the box and explain to the kids whats outside of this world we live in?



Perhaps so, but I think I wouldn't react as angry as some have. Id simply explain it to my kid and try to gradual educate him/her about about these type of things. The closest I have come to a kid is my nephew who is only a baby but I will try to educate him gently as he grows up.



Your not with him 24/7 so I have my doubts about if he actually does not EVER see anything like that (ie blood). But maybe so. Regardless, maybe its time to listen to the message being sent out, no?

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

I guess you're always right sully, it must be your vast years of experience:rolleyes:
Come back to me when you have small kids and we'll see if you feel the same way.

Well my point is the same as many many others who have said the same thing on local radio (and some of it on Boards). Obviously your entitled to your views (expressed by many others also) as am I. If you don't want to debate it, fair enough! I don't need to have kids to be able to give an opinion you know.

Mia belle

To be fair to sunnyse, parents should have the right to decide whether their children are ready for such images, and such talks about war etc. Its not nice as a parent to have that decision taken out of our hands, and especially by an artist. Fair enough, if you are happy to discuss such things with your young children , and allow them to see such images, as I said, it doesn't bother me because I like to teach my 6 year old about whats going on in the bigger world, my 3 year old doesn't even notice such things at her age, but, thats my decision.
I haven't read or listened to all the discussions, or explanations, so pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the artist hoping to achieve by allowing children to see such pictures ?
I can understand how an adult could be made aware of how children are used to fight wars, and maybe try to do something about it, but I can't see what benefit there is to allowing children of all ages view the pictures. Ok, I explained them to my 6 year old, she is now aware that in some parts of the world, children are not allowed to be children, but, I'm sure she has forgotten about it already.
Maybe I am missing the point, maybe someone can enlighten me as to what the point of putting the pictures in such public places is.

Sully

Mia belle wrote: »

To be fair to sunnyse, parents should have the right to decide whether their children are ready for such images, and such talks about war etc. Its not nice as a parent to have that decision taken out of our hands, and especially by an artist.

That is something the artist is trying to change. To many people don't tell their children these things, and he thinks they should. Hence the imagery. Which personally, I didn't think were half as bad as what we see in news reports, films, tv programs, various games etc. But sunnyse manages to completely protect her kids from seeing these, which is what she is entitled to do. People will agree with it or disagree with it, such is life.

Fair enough, if you are happy to discuss such things with your young children , and allow them to see such images, as I said, it doesn't bother me because I like to teach my 6 year old about whats going on in the bigger world, my 3 year old doesn't even notice such things at her age, but, thats my decision.

Well, thats what the artist is trying to do - make people more like you. Educating their kids early about these things and not being over protective. Quick question: Does your 3 year old not understand/care/notice the imagery?

I haven't read or listened to all the discussions, or explanations, so pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the artist hoping to achieve by allowing children to see such pictures ?

Its not just aimed at kids, its aimed at everyone to show us the "bigger picture" (that is, that while we have cosy lives the other side of the earth is war torn and people are not having such cosy lives) which we are quick to forget about.

I can understand how an adult could be made aware of how children are used to fight wars, and maybe try to do something about it, but I can't see what benefit there is to allowing children of all ages view the pictures.

Its also about how they are victims in other ways, excluding being used as a tool to fight in war. He wants parents to educate their children early.

Ok, I explained them to my 6 year old, she is now aware that in some parts of the world, children are not allowed to be children, but, I'm sure she has forgotten about it already.

That's very good of you, imo, to explain to your kids at that age about how life isn't always cosy and we don't always live perfect lives. Its good, imo, to educate kids early about various aspects of life.

Maybe I am missing the point, maybe someone can enlighten me as to what the point of putting the pictures in such public places is.

If its in public, we don't have a choice. Many avoid museums, so if its out in public display its harder to avoid so your more forced into explaining it.

sunnyse

You have no idea how condescending it is to lecture parents on how to raise their kids when you're all of...what...20 and have ..how many kids exactly?

I'm a bloke by the way.

and if I decide that my kid can wait till he's a bit older then that should be my decision, not an artists, not the city council and definitely not a 20 year old internet board mod:rolleyes:

robtri

sunnyse wrote: »

and if I decide that my kid can wait till he's a bit older then that should be my decision, not an artists, not the city council and definitely not a 20 year old internet board mod:rolleyes:

Have to agree, its not up to the artist to decide when parents have that conversation with their kids, thats the parents right,
I agree with the artist and what he is trying to achieve BUT i disagree with his method, it is not his right to force this onto people and by placing this art in public area's frequented by the public this is what he is trying to do....

Mia belle

Well, I don't think its his place to tell other parents they should be educating their children about such things from a young age. All children are different and only a parent knows whats best for their child. A lot of people would never have heard of this guy before now, I hadn't, so I wouldn't be following his advice on raising children.
I do as I said believe in being open with children, and raise mine to know about the world, I don't however expect other parents to follow my way.
My 3 year old didn't take much notice of the pictures, she had a look as we were passing, but never even mentioned them.
My 6 year old is a different kettle of fish, loves to know everything, and she has travelled a bit with us so has seen extreme poverty etc first hand.

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

You have no idea how condescending it is to lecture parents on how to raise their kids when you're all of...what...20 and have ..how many kids exactly?

I could spin that around and accuse you of the very same thing. I am giving my opinion, your giving yours. If you don't like it, fair enough. Its a discussion forum, we don't always have the same opinions on things and just because I am in my twenties and have no kids does not mean I can not give an opinion.

I'm a bloke by the way.

Ah okay, sorry about that!

and if I decide that my kid can wait till he's a bit older then that should be my decision, not an artists, not the city council and definitely not a 20 year old internet board mod:rolleyes:

Everyone is just giving a view on it. It is your decision, right or wrong, and your entitled to raise your kids as you see fit and we are entitled to give an opinion if we wish. Kids or no kids. I love the "internet board mod" as if that has anything to do with it :rolleyes:

Sully

Mia belle wrote: »

Well, I don't think its his place to tell other parents they should be educating their children about such things from a young age. All children are different and only a parent knows whats best for their child. A lot of people would never have heard of this guy before now, I hadn't, so I wouldn't be following his advice on raising children.

Its just his opinion, many others agree with him and many others don't. I do see the point about forcing people to view the pictures, but, I do see his point in response that its everywhere anyway.

I do as I said believe in being open with children, and raise mine to know about the world, I don't however expect other parents to follow my way.

I think it will benefit them to learn about these things when they are young and will help them in later life.

My 3 year old didn't take much notice of the pictures, she had a look as we were passing, but never even mentioned them.
My 6 year old is a different kettle of fish, loves to know everything, and she has travelled a bit with us so has seen extreme poverty etc first hand.

Good stuff

robtri

Sully wrote: »

Its just his opinion, many others agree with him and many others don't. I do see the point about forcing people to view the pictures, but, I do see his point in response that its everywhere anyway.

Alot of things are everywhere, sex, prostitution, etc... and likewise I dont see that it would be appropriate to have large pictures of these placed around the centre....

Jor

Mia Belle has said that she has brought her daughter travelling to places where she will have seen poverty. This will have given her an unusual first-hand experience and so developed her curiousity about such matters.

I believe that the artists aim is to bring this "first-hand" encounter to a wider audience who have been immunised by TV and print images. How many times have we seen on the news victims of famine, natural disasters and violence and said "Isn't that terrible." and just gone on with our lives. By pushing such images into our lives in an unusual way, it is supposed to make us all think more and perhaps even act on those thoughts.

Mia belle

But you see, its not " just his opinion " an opinion is a persons ideas or thoughts towards something, it is not fact.
He believes children of all ages should be exposed to such images, and to the truths of war, that parents should be talking to their children about these very things, as a matter of fact. By forcing children to view his images, he is forcing his ways onto other parents, and I personally think thats wrong.
My daughters need to know about some things like war, poverty etc, because they were born and adopted from Vietnam, so visit there and see things that need to be explained to them. I do think however that most children have no need to know such things, and can grow up very well adjusted and happy without knowing about war from an early age.
Let kids be kids, and let parents decide whats best for their children.

Mia belle

Well, I'm on the fence with this one. I can see now why the artist put up these pictures, and the message he is also trying to get across, however, I am also a firm believer in choice, and think parents choices in what when or how they expose their children to things should be respected.

Sully

Okay, but are the pictures really that bad? Most young kids wouldnt take much notice and those who do should be at the age where they should understand these things. Choice within reason - sometimes keeping things from your child for to long can be a bad thing rather then a good thing.

(Once again, nobody jump at me for giving an opinion without having kids of my own).

Morlar

Public spaces arent just the playgrounds of parents alone in my view. I think they are very impressive & thought provoking. I would much prefer and they would be more beneficial for children to see than say mc Donalds adverts etc. I will probably be heading down to check them out in person. Agree with many of the points above by Jor and others about the merits of the pieces.

Mia belle

Sully, I don't think the pictures are that bad at all, and yes, younger kids may not even notice or care about them. A certain age group, will just see a picture of a dead/dying child covered with blood, as we don't live in a war zone, thank god, a lot of little children won't know about war. Maybe some parents don't want them to know right now, its ok to protect little children from things, and stretch out their innocence.
I wonder how people would react if I put up a 20 foot poster of toddlers and young children working in sweat shops in Asia, would they still pop into the local shops who source their clothes from such factories . I somehow don't think I would be allowed do such a thing, yet, its also a case of children hurting and being abused.
If we are going to highligh how children suffer in this world, I don't think it should stop at war posters.

sunnyse

Sully wrote: »

Most young kids wouldnt take much notice and those who do should be at the age where they should understand these things. .

Says who, you keep making the point that children should know these things as soon as they understand them. But why and according to whom.
Why do you think children of 5 or 6 need to understand these things. Why would you ever subject a small child to images of blood and violence. You seem to think it somehow increases their knowledge about the outside world but that's not how a small childs mind works.
Small children shouldn't be watching fair city and playing grand theft auto, they shouldn't have the problems of the world on their tiny shoulders, they shouln't be made aware that people butcher other small children or force them to kill other small children. The world can be a terrible place and as adults we all know that but to force it upon little kids against the wishes of their parents is just ridiculous.

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

Says who, you keep making the point that children should know these things as soon as they understand them. But why and according to whom.

Iv already stated its my opinion. I personally feel that children should be educated when they are young, and parents should not be afraid to educate their kids about the range of issues in life.

Are you going to jump on any other poster who has made similar comments then me, or are you targeting me for some specific reason?

Why do you think children of 5 or 6 need to understand these things. Why would you ever subject a small child to images of blood and violence. You seem to think it somehow increases their knowledge about the outside world but that's not how a small childs mind works.
Small children shouldn't be watching fair city and playing grand theft auto, they shouldn't have the problems of the world on their tiny shoulders, they shouln't be made aware that people butcher other small children or force them to kill other small children. The world can be a terrible place and as adults we all know that but to force it upon little kids against the wishes of their parents is just ridiculous.

Its just my opinion that people at that age should know about it, as they are bound to come across it at that age and have questions. But, you know your child the best and if you think telling your child at that age would hinder and not help - then you are the voice of experience to do so.

Fajitas!

Regardless of content, some little sh*t decided he should scrawl his name into the one in John Roberts Sq.

kryogen

The art thats all over the town has provided quite a talking point in recent days, which, in essence is a very good thing, its great to have people on a large scale noticing and talking about art

But there is two very different points of view on it and i wanted to try get a little poll going to see what peoples feelings are on here

Do you think the pictures are good for the city overall or bad

i have my own opinion and will give it later if theres any interest in this poll

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

christophicus

Yeah but there is no poll in it. I too am interested to see what result we actually get.

takola

What I'll do guys is merge this thread with the other and add the poll to the other one too so you can still see the results. I'd rather keep it to one topic. People will just end up repeating themselves if we have 2 threads.

Merged and poll added