Members Vince Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 So I work for a church in London doing graphic design, and I've just been asked to remove the genitalia from the image of Kim Phuc (the one of the naked little girl in the Vietnam War) because the vicar doesn't think it's appropriate to use the image as it stands in his sermon on sunday night! I disagree with this, but still, it's my job, so I'm spending the next 15mins or so staring as close as you can get, at the pubic area of a little girl. All in the name of work. Weird eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I disagree with him. If he wants to communicate the full horror of what's going on in that situation, sparing the poor girl's dignity is kind of counter-productive. Did they give her anything to cover up with before they napalmed her village?If anyone in the congregation gets offended at the sight of a naked girl, they should be ten times as offended that there was a situation that could lead up to that picture being taken. Jesus, Christians. (i am one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members melx Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Vicars offend me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lanefair Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 So what, there's gonna be a picture of an androgynous little imp there instead? That vicar wouldn't complain as much if it were a little boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marmoset King Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Good grief, what next - photoshop a happy expression on the poor girl so the look of distress on her face doesn't upset the congregation. If he's trying to impress on people the horror of war then editing out the bits people might not wish to see is missing the bloody point somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members melx Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 That vicar wouldn't complain as much if it were a little boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 So what, there's gonna be a picture of an androgynous little imp there instead?You could probably argue that editing out her genitalia is just another act of dehumanisation that makes treating people in that way somehow alright.I'm not going to go there with the little boys thing. Labelling all vicars as paedophiles is insulting and inaccurate. That's scout masters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RUExp? Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Did they give her anything to cover up with before they napalmed her village? I heard that her clothes were burned off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lanefair Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I heard that her clothes were burned off. Clothes and skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dangerous dan Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 sounds wrong to me to edit it, i'm guessing his sermon is about war, or the horrors of it ? If so why hide / disrort the image, it's well known what it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vince Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I know - I disagree with him on the basis that the image is so well known, it has become iconic and it would look odder if it was changed, than if it wasn't. It's in the same league as taking the cigar away from Brunel - yes it shows him smoking, but that's who he was. And Lanefair, you've gone down in my estimation over the boys comment. Not funny dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members messiah Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 To bring it back on topic, why not cover the region with a Big Muff? I'll just get my coat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lanefair Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I know - I disagree with him on the basis that the image is so well known, it has become iconic and it would look odder if it was changed, than if it wasn't. It's in the same league as taking the cigar away from Brunel - yes it shows him smoking, but that's who he was.And Lanefair, you've gone down in my estimation over the boys comment. Not funny dude. Having re-read your first post it occurs to me that you probably know the Vicar quite well, so sorry if I offended you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vince Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 To bring it back on topic, why not cover the region with a Big Muff? I'll just get my coat... Awesome! I must be wrong in the head to be offended by Lanefair and to find this hilarious. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vince Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Having re-read your first post it occurs to me that you probably know the Vicar quite well, so sorry if I offended you. That's ok, apology accepted. I'm Anglican, not Roman Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 photoshop a huge jungle bush down there and see what the vicar thinks of it... or photoshop his face down there winking or photoshop a huge black penis on there... ... well that's about much fun as I can poke about this disgusting subject, my hell quota is full for the day... thanks! one last thing... come in here dear boy, I'm the Vicar you're gunna go faryou're gunna fly highyou're never gunna dieyou're gunna make it if you tryI'm gunna love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bmast160 Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 he probably wants to do it cause there will be kids there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crxsh Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I get it .... but that's dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lanefair Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 he probably wants to do it cause there will be kids there... I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, I would've been more disturbed by seeing a napalm victim than a foo foo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crxsh Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 ^ ^ Foo Foo??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members melx Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 he probably wants to do it cause there will be kids there...It's usually adults that are offended by nudity, my kids couldn't care less.I think the look the childs face would be more upsetting to children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members melx Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, I would've been more disturbed by seeing a napalm victim than a foo foo.got there before me. but yeah, that's the general twisted logic of these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vince Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Well I've just found out the title of his sermon is "How to respond to difficult people." Quite what this has to do with Kim Phuc, I have no idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marmoset King Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 It's usually adults that are offended by nudity, my kids couldn't care less. I think the look the childs face would be more upsetting to children. True. Kids shouldn't be taught to be offended by nudity but they should be taught (in an age appropriate way) about the horrors of war. That way when some of them grow up to become Prime Ministers and Presidents they might pause for thought before sending people to their deaths in pointless wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bmast160 Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 It's usually adults that are offended by nudity, my kids couldn't care less. I think the look the childs face would be more upsetting to children. they're probably thinking that itll prompt questions from kids and it would force parents to explain things at a young age that they can conviently skip over...aka sex...why boys are different from girls etc.debatable whether thats beneficial or not but thats probably what theyre thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.