Inappropriate photos 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.

bilderberg

bilderberg

how dare you seize those photos. i thought that i would get to see some child pussy.

reply to post by Nammu

reply to post by tezzajw

lets see the pictures and yuor own judge

That is just not okay

Originally posted by Nammu
...with no exploitation...

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?

I am an Academic painter. And I think that child porn should not be in any case mixed up with art. There are naked wall paintings of angels in churches and those angels are like from 3 to 12 or 13 years old children. If we are to be so paranoid about child porn in art than the Police should also seize all those "frescas" in Churches. I think people are getting to much dumb in mixing art with porn. And it is sad to be so. If I paint naked child in Church as an angel it s ok, but if I paint naked child on a painting it s child porn? Comm on! How dumb can u get???

Originally posted by Academic painter
I am an Academic painter. And I think that child porn should not be in any case mixed up with art. There are naked wall paintings of angels in churches and those angels are like from 3 to 12 or 13 years old children.

Yes I have seen that argument used many times.

I am a painter myself and I know it's very possible to paint images of naked people without actually seeing them naked. So were child nude models used for those church paintings or not? Well I have no idea whether or not those child models were molested by those artists but given many artists have sex with their models it's not outside the rhelm of possibilty. We do know there were alot of children molested by the church itself so why would you assume those paintings were created in a "moral" way? For all we know clergy may have requested naked children in the paintings for their own fetishes.

If we are to be so paranoid about child porn in art than the Police should also seize all those "frescas" in Churches. I think people are getting to much dumb in mixing art with porn. And it is sad to be so. If I paint naked child in Church as an angel it s ok, but if I paint naked child on a painting it s child porn? Comm on! How dumb can u get???

Many of those paintings you speak of were created at a time when slavery was legal, burning women alive for witchcraft was considered the moral thing to do and having sex with child wives was the norm. I understand why people hold these artworks in reverence.. I would love to see some of them myself but we have no reason to assume no one was harmed in the creation of them. I mean the church even built a chapel from the bones of it's victims.. should that be destroyed as well?

The difference is that today women and children have rights and the human race has got higher expectations of itself. Do you really think the current church would be allowed to get children to pose naked for their paintings? Why then should random artists get special allowences to take pics of naked children? They are not above the law and if we made an "art" exception pedos everywhere would be using "it's not porn it's art!" as a legal defence. Great idea.

aren't you glad you bumped this thread up? Welcome to ATS.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Academic painter
I am an Academic painter. And I think that child porn should not be in any case mixed up with art. There are naked wall paintings of angels in churches and those angels are like from 3 to 12 or 13 years old children.

Yes I have seen that argument used many times.

I am a painter myself and I know it's very possible to paint images of naked people without actually seeing them naked. So were child nude models used for those church paintings or not? Well I have no idea whether or not those child models were molested by those artists but given many artists have sex with their models it's not outside the rhelm of possibilty. We do know there were alot of children molested by the church itself so why would you assume those paintings were created in a "moral" way? For all we know clergy may have requested naked children in the paintings for their own fetishes.

If we are to be so paranoid about child porn in art than the Police should also seize all those "frescas" in Churches. I think people are getting to much dumb in mixing art with porn. And it is sad to be so. If I paint naked child in Church as an angel it s ok, but if I paint naked child on a painting it s child porn? Comm on! How dumb can u get???

Many of those paintings you speak of were created at a time when slavery was legal, burning women alive for witchcraft was considered the moral thing to do and having sex with child wives was the norm. I understand why people hold these artworks in reverence.. I would love to see some of them myself but we have no reason to assume no one was harmed in the creation of them. I mean the church even built a chapel from the bones of it's victims.. should that be destroyed as well?

The difference is that today women and children have rights and the human race has got higher expectations of itself. Do you really think the current church would be allowed to get children to pose naked for their paintings? Why then should random artists get special allowences to take pics of naked children? They are not above the law and if we made an "art" exception pedos everywhere would be using "it's not porn it's art!" as a legal defence. Great idea.

aren't you glad you bumped this thread up? Welcome to ATS.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by riley]

All those things you said are just negative assumptions and not facts. I know many artists, painters that have painted their children as nudes and sculptures also nudes. and I know them well. No one never have molested their children in any way. There are also nudists that go to sea side with their children naked. All its fine as long as they are not molested in any form. If a child poses nude with their parents permission and its only modeling should not be considered child porn. Or we also should shut down all nude beaches. An if you are a real artist than you should know that top and highest quality nude paintings are and can only be made with a live model, as sometimes only a child's body can express what painter had in mind. In those paintings there is no need to paint any part of body that would be considered as porn. A well known pose "contrapost" where tha model is standing with one foot relaxed is not a porn in any way, no matter what the model's age are.
And how about the fashion modeling? There are many under age models with papers signed by their parents and they do modeling with see through cloths... I never had read that the Police would close and seize those photographers taking those pictures.
And there's something else... I very much doubt that you are and artist, and if you are, I doubt you have seen an Academy of fine arts. You most probably are old fashioned paranoid and angry Policeman that has no clue about art what so ever.

I am a painter myself and I know it's very possible to paint images of naked people without actually seeing them naked. So were child nude models used for those church paintings or not? Well I have no idea whether or not those child models were molested by those artists but given many artists have sex with their models it's not outside the rhelm of possibilty. We do know there were alot of children molested by the church itself so why would you assume those paintings were created in a "moral" way? For all we know clergy may have requested naked children in the paintings for their own fetishes.

I know about Church sins... And if you have attended Art History lessons in any way in any school you would know that Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, Raffaelo, Masaccio and many others used live models to study child anatomy for paintings. As u don't know this I assume you have not been on Academy where real artists attend to get the big picture about art.
And there were no reports about any kind of child abuse. So everything else is only unfair and unneeded speculation.