hawkeye10 wrote:Bella Dea wrote:This is a tough one.
First, it was not (as i understand) intended to be sexual. So you can argue its not porn.
However, someone who enjoys little kids (shiver) would probably think it's sexy. (double shiver)
That little girl is just a little girl and probably sees nothing wrong with being naked. And we shouldn't have to tel her there is anything wrong with being naked.
It's those freak weirdos who look at her in a way she should not be looked at that f*ck things up.
I'd not let my daughter do it.
So I guess that's my answer. It's not right.
and you know what...when you let the freaks determine how you live your life you let them win. Any perv could get off on looking at a pic of your daughter playing the front yard, or be sitting in a car and looking and her and jacking off. Who knows how many guys have already made a mental pic of the little girls that you love and stroked to them, and there is no reason to care. No harm was done. Unless you are prepared to send her out every day in a berka I suggest that you calm down, and live your life in a civilized manor. Living in fear is not civilized. Teaching kids that their sexuality is some how bad, that evil is everywhere, and that their body is something that must at all times be hidden is too teach poorly. The end result is that you will likely produced one screwed up repressed adult, and we already have way to many of them running around.
Says one of our resident perverts, probably as he unzips his fly. No surprise the demented psychopath fails to understand the issue of consent
again. What a piece of garbage you
really are, you pathetic coward.
The sad truth is that allowing this kind of art, however innocent it may actually be, opens the door wide open for perverts like Rapist boy and the other sicko to exploit children. I'm all for free press where adults are concerned, but neither of the kids referenced above were mature enough to consent. The demented duo seems incapable of understanding this simple truth... and I continue to be disgusted by their very presence.
I'm not the least opposed to photos or oil paintings of naked children, assuming they don't depict sexual abuse, aren't provocative.. To me it is how they are distributed. As I mentioned in another famous thread, there are centuries of madonna and child paintings, uh, for heaven's sake. And as raprap mentioned, children have forever run around nekkid on beaches...
I don't remember that Sally Mann's photos of her children - older than toddlers but I forget their ages now - were provocative and they were art, as deemed by many photo critics at the time. But they were also personal to those children, and therein is the question to a lot of us, informed consent. I would feel better about it if she published that book with their ok when they were, say, 21. If the photos were so good, they'd still be in museums, etc. And that wouldn't bother me, I don't think. Even as I type that I think that that would still be a kind of using..
I understand the piquance of the beauty of a just pubescent child, as I understand the beauty (bear with me here) of people starting to show real aging, with the starter chin wattle for the newly middle aged and the deeper facial gouging of wrinkles for the seemingly suddenly very elderly.
I don't think these should be unphotographible or unpaintable. Maybe I'm out on a limb. But, with the children, it all strikes me as very personal, and easily subject to exploitation.
OCCOM BILL wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:Bella Dea wrote:This is a tough one.
First, it was not (as i understand) intended to be sexual. So you can argue its not porn.
However, someone who enjoys little kids (shiver) would probably think it's sexy. (double shiver)
That little girl is just a little girl and probably sees nothing wrong with being naked. And we shouldn't have to tel her there is anything wrong with being naked.
It's those freak weirdos who look at her in a way she should not be looked at that f*ck things up.
I'd not let my daughter do it.
So I guess that's my answer. It's not right.
and you know what...when you let the freaks determine how you live your life you let them win. Any perv could get off on looking at a pic of your daughter playing the front yard, or be sitting in a car and looking and her and jacking off. Who knows how many guys have already made a mental pic of the little girls that you love and stroked to them, and there is no reason to care. No harm was done. Unless you are prepared to send her out every day in a berka I suggest that you calm down, and live your life in a civilized manor. Living in fear is not civilized. Teaching kids that their sexuality is some how bad, that evil is everywhere, and that their body is something that must at all times be hidden is too teach poorly. The end result is that you will likely produced one screwed up repressed adult, and we already have way to many of them running around.
Says one of our resident perverts, probably as he unzips his fly. No surprise the demented psychopath fails to understand the issue of consent
again. What a piece of garbage you
really are, you pathetic coward.
The sad truth is that allowing this kind of art, however innocent it may actually be, opens the door wide open for perverts like Rapist boy and the other sicko to exploit children. I'm all for free press where adults are concerned, but neither of the kids referenced above were mature enough to consent. The demented duo seems incapable of understanding this simple truth... and I continue to be disgusted by their very presence.
So let's say that you're married and you and your wife want to have another kid. Obviously life will change a great deal for the kids that you already have. Do you get their permission before you get her pregnant? Why not, arn't your kids entitled to informed consent?
Do you get informed consent when deciding what school to put them in, where to go on vacation, what job offers that require moving that you accept?? Why not, don't you understand informed consent? You are a hypocrite arn't you? You are all hot to trot when the concept suits your agenda, but do you really believe in it of you don't practice it routinely yourself?? Obviously not...
Parents take their kids best interest into account and decide for them everyday. That's what parents do. To say that parents can't do something because they don't have informed consent is logical nonsense, because parents never have legally binding informed consent. And those adults who are constantly trying to obtain the unobtainable informed consent from kids that they gave birth to are not parents, they are the pathetic cases who want to be the kid's "friend"....thus usually screwing up the kid for life, creating yet another adult narcissistic monster.
But there is a big difference between public and private. There are hundreds of laws that govern child actors and models that don't apply to "private" children.
This mother gave consent for the image to be used. That opens the door to criticism of her decision because it does allow possible exploitation.
boomerang wrote:But there is a big difference between public and private. There are hundreds of laws that govern child actors and models that don't apply to "private" children.
This mother gave consent for the image to be used. That opens the door to criticism of her decision because it does allow possible exploitation.
Certainly, however there is a big difference between that place to stand and those who say that parents never have a right to allow their kids to be shot nude because they have not given informed consent.
If it is art, that is recognized in the art community as art, then the pics are fine. If not then we need to talk, because the child might be being exploited. The fundamentalist child rights and self appointed child protection mob members have gotten every bit as bad as the Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberson type yokels. They must be stopped!
hawkeye10 wrote:So let's say that you're married and you and your wife want to have another kid. Obviously life will change a great deal for the kids that you already have. Do you get their permission before you get her pregnant? Why not, arn't your kids entitled to informed consent?
Do you get informed consent when deciding what school to put them in, where to go on vacation, what job offers that require moving that you accept?? Why not, don't you understand informed consent? You are a hypocrite arn't you? You are all hot to trot when the concept suits your agenda, but do you really believe in it of you don't practice it routinely yourself?? Obviously not...
Parents take their kids best interest into account and decide for them everyday. That's what parents do. To say that parents can't do something because they don't have informed consent is logical nonsense, because parents never have legally binding informed consent. And those adults who are constantly trying to obtain the unobtainable informed consent from kids that they gave birth to are not parents, they are the pathetic cases who want to be the kid's "friend"....thus usually screwing up the kid for life, creating yet another adult narcissistic monster.
This is easily the most idiotic submission of the week. Everyone who's read it is a little dumber for having done so. That you actually think you've made a point; is
astounding. The only thing you've proven is that there is nothing mutually exclusive between psychopathic and idiotic.
hawkeye10 wrote, inter alia -
'If it is art, that is recognized in the art community as art, then the pics are fine.'
Could someone please tell me just where, in the book of life, it is written that art and artists are to be held exempt from the laws and mores of civilized society?
Don't misunderstand me, I have a fair appreciation of art, and have rubbed shoulders with many artists in my time. So often, however, have I come across the attitude that because they are driven by their muse to seek and depict the truth in all its forms they must be cosseted by wealthy sponsors and subjected to none of the limitations or inhibitions of ordinary, dumb, untalented plebs.
When I was young, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed I imagine I agreed with this to a great extent. However, with age and maturity I have come to realise that many artists have some talent but don't want to do the hard yards and self-discipline of actually getting up and going to work every day to earn a living, but because they are a part of the 'art community' they can do what they like and if anyone is shocked or horrified then it must be the eye of the beholder that is wrong! (Just like in The Emperor's New Clothes.)
I don't want to sound trite or banal, but it seems that all this current brouhaha was finely staged to expand the market and increase the value of these artists' work. By whom? Perhaps by the artists themselves and/or the agents, gallery owners, art magazine publshers; who knows?
It just does not sit easy with me that this is done by using children. If I could I would wrap every child in cotton wool and protect them from the vile things of this world for as long as possible. I know that is not possible and that children have to learn to survive by themselves. Our task, as responsible adults is to help them achieve this by guiding them, with advice and example - and yes, sometimes, discipline - through the various pitfalls and crises as they happen. Those old fashioned, boring concepts like integrity, self-respect, self-worth, responsibility.
I just cannot comprehend how any parent could claim to be instilling those concepts into their child by letting them be used like this. I know naked children have been depicted in paintings since Pontius was a pilot and I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem at all with littlies being photographed in the bath or running around the back yard wearing nothing but a big grin with the sheer joy of living. Great stuff! But I cannot, and will not, ever accept that it is right to pose children in a way that suggests something sensual, set up subdued backlighting, take photos or paint them like this and exhibit the results and probably offer them for sale --- knowing full well where the market lies.
There is a word for this..
PANDERER
EnglishGrammar2008.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - pan·der Also, pan·der·er. -noun
1. a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse; procurer; pimp.
2. a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others.3. a go-between in amorous intrigues.
-verb (used without object) 4. to act as a pander; cater basely: to pander to the vile tastes of vulgar persons. -verb (used with object) 5. to act as a pander for.
--------
American Heritage Dictionary -
n.
A sexual procurer.
One who caters to or exploits the lower tastes and desires of others.
--------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
noun
1. someone who procures customers for whores (in England they call a pimp a ponce) [syn: pimp]
2. a person who serves or caters to the vulgar passions or plans of others (especially in order to make money)
---------
And to see little Olympia, now aged 11, being trotted out by daddy to tell all the reporters that she was not offended, and her life had not been affected by it, was.so.damned.sad.
When I started this thread I did not expect it to attract this much response. Thank you all for your input - you don't have to agree with me, but I do appreciate your thoughts.
Why the
need for this rather late-in-the-piece defence of child nudity in art in
Art Monthly Australia?
The "Henson controversy" was over & his (nude children) photographs officially approved as appropriate for public viewing. :wink: Why then the need for
Art Monthly Australia's front page, featuring (art critic) Robert Nelson's (then) six year old daughter's naked photograph? The photograph was taken by her mother, photographer Polixeni Papapetrou.
Responding to reactions to the photograph of his daughter, Olympia, on the art magazine cover
.... art critic Robert Nelson insisted that someone explain how photographs of naked children exploit them.
"That hasn't been talked about," he said. "I want to see someone explain what that form of exploitation is." (quote from article link below, from today's AGE newspaper)
Perhaps he got his answer today, in the last paragraph of the linked article below?:
"...aside from the question of art versus pornography, aside from the issue of whether children or adolescents are equipped to give consent in matters they might not fully understand, exploitation can also take the form of parents, photographers and magazine editors using a child to promote themselves, their work, or their publication.
If it takes a philistine to point that out, so be it."
Had anyone even
heard of (photographer)
Polixeni Papapetrou before her daughter's naked photograph appeared on the front cover of
Art Monthly Australia?
The art world should not sneer at society's genuine concerns:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-art-world-should-not-sneer-at-societys-genuine-concerns-20080708-3bsh.html?page=-1
hawkeye, you don't have kids, do you? If you do, god help them.
If you knew anything about me you'd know I was pretty far from sexually repressed.
I just know that nudity = sexuality in our society, right or wrong, most people see naked people and think sex.
In other parts of the world, this isn't as true as it is here but in the US nudity tends to equal sexuality.
For an adult who chooses to portray themselves this way it's fine. Adults understand the consequences of their choices, or at the very least have the ability to understand. Children, especially pre-pubescent, don't have the emotional maturity to understand or deal with the fact that there are people out there who will view them sexually. Like it or not, I think that this is wrong.
It's like using mentally retarted people for cheap labor because they don't know any better.
Please don't tell me I'm somehow ruining my child because I don't want sick nasty perverts coveting her innocence. I can't control someone looking at her with her clothes on but a pervert is far more likely to jerk off to her image if she's naked. And I CAN control that.
On the note of adults dressing like children...I think that's a slippery slope because it feeds the desire and the fantasy of a pedophile. However, because it's a consenting adult who is doing it it makes it difficult to say it's wrong. Some people have that fantasy without being a pervert. They'd never dream of fantasizing or molesting an actual child. But it says it's ok to like that and again, opens that door.
I think it's morally irresponsible to promote and publicly display pictures of adults dressed like children. But I don't think it is wrong or should be illegal.
Chai wrote:What wrong with photographing a clothed child?
For the parents, are you going to be sitting an looking at old photos of your kinds being adorable, clever, silly and say "I sure wish we had more pictures of our kid naked. I mean, look at this picture, wouldn't it be so much better if he had his clothes off?"
The fact is, little kids spend a lot of time naked. If you don't want every picture to be posed, then you're gonna have to shoot 'em nekkid sometimes.
I haven't looked at the photo in question, but I've got to ask, what's up with putting it on the cover of a magazine?
lezzles wrote:Could someone please tell me just where, in the book of life, it is written that art and artists are to be held exempt from the laws and mores of civilized society?
So often, however, have I come across the attitude that because they are driven by their muse to seek and depict the truth in all its forms they must be cosseted by wealthy sponsors and subjected to none of the limitations or inhibitions of ordinary, dumb, untalented plebs.
with age and maturity I have come to realise that many artists have some talent but don't want to do the hard yards and self-discipline of actually getting up and going to work every day to earn a living, but because they are a part of the 'art community' they can do what they like and if anyone is shocked or horrified then it must be the eye of the beholder that is wrong! (Just like in The Emperor's New Clothes.)
Ah lezzles, you're a woman after my own heart. There have been many times in my life I have cried out "The Emeror's Naked!" Both literally and figuratively.
Strangest thing, it's never received well.
Then, the protests, denials, rationalizations start. What I think then is "Methinks thou dost protest too much"
I too have wondered at why artists, including actors, musicians, etc are given this carte blanche of being above us mere mortals. But, that's another topic.
To be honest, I wouldn't pay a dollar for the photo of the magazine cover you initially posted. Nothing special as far as talent as far as I can see.
But, she's naked, and it causes a stir.....yawn.
Chai wrote:To be honest, I wouldn't pay a dollar for the photo of the magazine cover you initially posted. Nothing special as far as talent as far as I can see.
Thank goodness, I thought it was just me. I feel sorry for the kid, and contempt for the mother. (It's certainly not a flattering photo and the background is hideous -- reminds me of the opening to "The Simpson's".)
but tai chi, don't you understand?
It's ART!!!
@hingehead,
I think people have gotten a little overbearing with their opinions. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this shot.
Olympia is absoulutely a beautiful young lady and I look at this picture in total awe. I an sure because of what this one picture has done; we have lost probably a lot more shots of her that we will never get to see. She and her parents will be the only ones to see the beauty in the rest of them.
So you see a nipple. "WOW'; what's wrong with that?
When I raised my girl, I saw her nipple and everything else and nothing was wrong with that.
Sad; people don't understand the difference in kiddie porn and art. "Thanks Sweetheart;" for the wonderful pose and picture.
John (72 years)
@Bella Dea,
So
you think of sex when looking at these photos?
And you think
we all think the same way?
Your right, you don't have to 'ruin' your child, that's your opinion and choice.
It's not like using mentally retarded people, its a photo, not slave labor.
I don't see a problem here.
I think its the beholders that have the issues, not the subject matter.
Over reactions to an otherwise forgettable news story, musta been scraping the barrel that day.
@Xenoche,
Quote:So you think of sex when looking at these photos?
And you think we all think the same way
even if someone does look at a kid or a pic of a kid and want to have sex with them, it is no ones business. Actions count, desires do not.
I find it sad that these politicos are using the girl as a political football, like a piece of moral high ground on a political battlefield.
