Btw I personally think it's interesting. If the subway story is true, that's kinda icky. The image is interesting, though.
Point is just that naked 11-year-old girls probably wouldn't go over well with whomever stipulated no porn in the contract Craven signed.
Should we start a thread about the difference between art and porn? For example, I admire Sally Mann's photos of her children, which are quite controversial.
One final comment -- since I am so chagrined that something I posted might be construed as kiddie porn.
When I first saw that album cover, I was near the same age (& development) as that girl. I was pleased to see something that seemed to relate to me. Of course I liked it!
I also remember thinking that, because of the flat background of sky and green hillside, she could have been any size at all. With that fairly realistic airplane in her hands, it was easy to visualize her as an Amazon, gigantic, maybe even the Maiden Goddess who was holding a symbol of man's technology in her hand and wondering where to toss it.
sozobe..go for it. Yeah, if the girl is 11, whatever the "artistic" intent and complicity of the parents (most likely high), in today's world, it would be considered an illegal post, child porn. And, btw, I totally agree with Piffka about the merit of the photo....it's just that laws are laws, and sometimes harsh. Personally, I think I may have to side with the law on this....there are so many freaks out there...the NAMBLA people really creep me out....as innocent as the photo is, it wouldn't take a closeted pedophile too much time to research the photo, and start stalking young girls in chat rooms. A sad state of affairs, but today's reality.
Even though it's an interesting photograph, perhaps publishing it on an album cover was not the best idea .... Context is important.
