HEY! I finally remembered my password! That said, I'll ask a mod to delete the anonymous post I just made to this, which was as follows.

For a resolve of "art or porn" ........ take all those pictures of 6-16 year old boys/girls to a prison with convicted pedophiles. Give those pedophiles the pitures. Do you, those in defense of this photography, REALLY think those pedophiles are going to be in awe of the artistic quality? Or are they going to see naked little kids, and start masturbating right there in their cell?

Folks keep saying it's art not porn, but if the pedophiles are aroused at these photo's (do you HONESTLY think they would not be?), will you still defend it as art?

As my fundamentalist acquaintances continually point out "If God intended us to be naked, then we would have been born that way!"

I find the constant obsession to equate sex and nudity in the US and other fundamentalist societies, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, quite irrational. Having spent a lot of time at nude beaches and other clothing optional places, I can assure those who are terrified that seeing a nipple will automatically cause uncontrollable sexual urges that seeing most people naked is not a sexual turn on, in fact it more often than not evokes the response "ouch!" or "ewww". Most of the time though, unless you really believe that skin naughty, you just don't notice.

That obviously won't work. A pedophiles can be aroused by a mere swimsuit photo. And there's no guarantee he will say the truth. And even if he is aroused by those pictures, that won't change anything in the court, because he's abnormal (at least I think so, can any lawyer confirm this?)

I have never seen the photos but there are two scenarios.

The photos could've been sexual, showing the human body of a child in an erotic situation/pose etc,.

OR

These could've been photos to show the mind of the child, how nude or not the child's mind is intact. Children that are clean from perverse thoughts showing purity and innocence.

If it's the latter, shame on the cops, if it's the former, shame on the pedophile.

I know a guy who paints, he has dozens of nudes of his daughters and wife, but only a couple of himself (a few self-portraits). And this guy is no perv lol.

reply to post by tezzajw

---

I think context is always the best policy for most laws. I mean are we going to ban and censor this:




Or are we going to arrest the vast number of parents who take pictures of their children in the tub or running around naked in the yard. He is clearly an artist and as long as there was some kind of parental consent, this should be a non-story.

I see this as art really, I mean we have pictures of naked babies and no one cries fowl...because they aren't portrayed in a sexual manner. If this was portrayed in such as way as there were innuendos of sexual positions that would be different...but this is simply art. There are some perverts out there that might "get off" to it, but there are perverts who get off to cartoons and other weird stuff...but that doesn't mean they are sexual.

I have seen some very flawed logic in this thread from all sides. One religion (Christianity) does not say nudity is wrong. The only reason man (humans) had an issue with nudity in the bible and were clothed is because man (humans) were ashamed of their nude bodies. There is nothing wrong with nudity in art. But at what point does it stop being art? Certainly ask most people who make pornography and they claim it is art. So is pornography art?

There are photographers out there who certainly merge art and pornography. They do so in subtle ways using lighting and everything else to make it more art like. In the end it is nothing more than an erotic picture of a nude woman.

I seen one post that claimed if the man makes his living as an artist by selling art then if he claims it is art and nothing more than that is how it should be viewed. That is very flawed just because he is an artist does not mean he is not a pervert. There was also a post stating that the models for paintings should be viewed no differently than those of a photo. Well a good artist does not need a model to be nude to paint a nude body. Paintings and statues are different than photos in the realism they have. Regardless of how life like they are one can tell they are not real even though an original model might have been. A photo on the other hand still shows a very real person, one that is much easier to recognize as the photo is exact. Paintings and statues will never be exact no matter how good the artist is.

Now let’s look at what happens when someone has pictures similar to this on their computer. Imagine that they have a very large collection of photos like this. Are they now perverts or art collectors? Maybe we have been arresting art collectors for years now and they should be freed. One more question. What if your child’s school/high school art teacher wanted to take nude photos of them strictly for art purposes? He is after all doing it for art, and he will be there to mentor/teach your child as well.

The thing that I just cannot get past is why photos of nude children? I find it strange that any adult is taking photos of children being nude especially photos that everyone will be seeing. I understand some parents take bath time photos of their babies (don’t know why) and these are only for the family (hopefully) that will not think of them as anything but their family member. These photos though can be viewed by anyone rather they view them as art or pornography. Children should not be photographed in ways such as this for just anyone to see. As has been mentioned many times in this thread some see it as art, others though might be using such photos in ways that could be seen as abusive to the children. I don’t think the child has to know about it for it to be child abuse or exploitation.

Any way this is just my opinion on the subject agree or disagree it matters not to me.

Raist

I recall my parents having some photos with me in the bath. People saw them sometimes when they came over and my parents were all gawwy eyed with their son, no biggie =).

Unless something sexual is involved it's fine, and I'm sure they were nude but not exposed. Alas, even if they were exposed, it doesn't necessarily induce perversion in the viewer's eyes.

Great post! Thanks for the good chuckle



Or, for that matter, paranoid attitude towards s3x, at least in public policies.

Well, personally, I think it is a way of one expressing ones inner feelings about himself or another. I've seen some of his art and I think that there could be some mixed emotions here. He might be expressing art in the form of nude young girls because it's a way of art. He might be expressing his FEELINGS, also. Say, he might want a kid as his own but doesnt. (I dont know if he has a kid or not, though). And who knows? Maybie they WERE made to be sexual and nudeal. As for right now, I dont think that any charges will be pressed on him at all. Partly becuase the parents of the kids have not pressed charges and, mostly, the kids seemed to NOT have any problems with the photoshoot at all. At least thats what they said to the Officials

reply to post by Shpow

---

"I know a guy who paints, he has dozens of nudes of his daughters and wife, but only a couple of himself (a few self-portraits). And this guy is no perv lol."

Thats intresting. Now, i have but ONE question for you about that sentence you posted.
If this guy is not a perv, then why does he paint pictures of his daughter, wife, and himself??? It's really simple if you come to think about it. There is only four possible answers. One. He is a pervert. Two. His wife is a pervert. Three. (this one seems the most un-likely. But still...) His daughters a pervert. (She's probly quite old too. Older than 18, im guessing). Or four. They are all perverts. Simple.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by k-man]

I find the constant need for nudity in art quite irrational.

Yes you are right and wrong. First of all, YES, if a man sells art FOR ART, then YES that is what it should be thought of becuase (that's probably what it is!!! ART!!!) Second. "Models for paintings should be viewed no differently than those of a photo". True. Very true. Excep THEY ARE VIEWD DIFFERENTLY ALL THE TIME. One man might think that a photo of a nude kid (more or less a nude kid girl) is awsome and perverted, while another man might think of it as something stupid and wierd that somebody might like that. The man that thinks that PHOTO is wierd might paint portraits of nude girls BECUASE OF ART!!!! While the man who fell in love with the PHOTO might think the portrait is wierd becuase it's not a real picture. It might have real life in it, but it wasn't taken with a camera. He might think of the artist wierd to fall in love with something that never really moved. THERE!!! Think that over, now will ya. Third. Why photos of nude children? Yes. Why. Probably either becuase of the ARTISTICS in a young girl, or becuase of pervertedness. And,NO. Those arn't the same thing. Yes it is strange that people would take pictures of nude children. Yes, they can be viewd as pornography or ART. The viewer has to make that decision on his own. It is also his/her choice to decide wheather or not to enjoy the pictures as PORNOGRAPHY or ART. And, finally, yes, here it comes, I don’t think the child has to know about it for it to be child abuse or exploitation either. BUT, it would be quite hard to keep the kid from not knowing whats going. on.