Naked photos of 12/13 year old girls in art gallery seized by police.

reply to post by paperplanes

---

We like to pretend we are more civilized and enlightened than the cultures who viewed the blush of young maidenhood as supple and sexual.

We'd be wrong... we only punish those for overtly practicing or lacking the common sense to hide their arousal at humans past pubescence.

I think my last post illustrated my point more... I sometimes wonder about humanity, especially our modern culture... and how it views itself as better and more moral than the entirety of human history.

As much as it is 'art' at the end of the day somewhere along the line the images would be sold on (unless they were going to be donated to an 'art' institution), thus the exploitation starts there due to the contravertial nature of the 'art' and desire of ownership by anyone wanting to purchase the imagery weather or not the reason is rooted out of pedophilic (yes it is in the dicionary) nature.

Even if the 'young adults' were to be given money, even if they and their parents consented its still a manipulation of sort.

If man A who is old enough (if you get me) was to perhaps ask girl A of 13 years to pose for a nude photo that he wanted to hang on his wall, would he not still be prosecuted for possesing child pornography.

Or on another extreme if said subjects engaged in a sexual act even after explaining that it shouldnt be happening, its against the law etc etc, theres no way out of it your still a nonse by definition.

In this case i think a punishment should still be delivered but in context with the 'crime' commited, i dont agree with this 'art' or many other forms of supposed 'art' that gets peddled to the 'arty' masses like crystal meth, it rots people, deludes them in their perceptions of what 'art' really is, and as a result of that i dare say is how we endup having this discussion, on ATS, related to this article with regards to the nature of the arrest made.

There was a time when nudity in art was considered fine. Even today, there are certain countries that allow children to go nude at home and sometimes even in public places, such as a beach. However, there is a fine line between art and porn. One who uses art as an excuse for displaying porn, is not an artist. I can understand to a point, the artistic nature of a photograph of a nude child. However, in today's culture, would it not be beneficial for the artist to restrict himself to only photographing nude adults?

i am not for 'child porn' in any way. and cant comment on the actual photos.. since they are pulled. BUT.. you have to wonder what kind of a society we have become where its ok for kids to watch cartoons and movies with people killing others and blood and guts and violent acts, yet we shun away from something as natural as our body.
Are we as people that insecure about our self, are we teaching our children the same?
The human body in any form is art.. (form meaning size shape etc).
sure anyone posting true child porn should be shurt down fast and charged. But from reading the post and comments about the interviews, there was nothing to show that it was bad.

We have evolved as a society, the question is what direction we have gone.. and where will we end up.
Violence rules over common nudity... whats next, someone nude gets life, while the murder walks with a ticket?