Man that's ridiculous. I see the human body as art. No matter who you are, shape, size,age or sex..Art is art man. I don't see anything wrong, unless the childs were seen having relations? why is being nude punishable? I walk around nude all day long.

I'd be more interested to know who the girls in the pictures are, if they have a parent or parents, and the parents' reasoning?

Peace

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Dr Love]

i do concur it isn`t `child porn` - she isn`t eroticised in anyway at all - in fact i would go so far as to say the opposite , very modest pose and alot of darkness and obscuring - but of course given she is young , and the history of the photographer , it was bound to cause controversy

i ask this , how is this different in its presentation to , say , an eldery person , sitting in a chair drooling and wearing a nappy? is that sort of image defaming?

[edit on 28/5/08 by Harlequin]

The police commissioner appears to have taken it because and I quote "I am a father first" ... soo .. he is relating these photos to his own children and is imagining this bizzar scenario where his children are being abused.

Which is different then what is being portrayed because the children are not being abused at all. At least it appears they where not forced into this.. and I doubt they where.

So in short yes, I agree it is art.

And I don't think the government has a right to tell the people what is and what is not art..

HOWEVER.. it's a double edged sword. If this man gets off on these charges and is allowed to keep his gallery.. where is the line going to be drawn on what is and is not art? .. You could see an increase in nude photo's of children in galleries, in ever increasingly sexual positions.. which could end up being an epidemic.

There just needs to be an understanding of what is tactful and what is not.. sensitive topic, rational thinking I believe could solve it though.

It doesn't matter if you think it's art or not. The child pornography laws have been enacted to first and foremost protect children. The idea would be to error on the side of protecting children. Society will survive if it is prohibited to display photos of naked minors. One of the few worthy functions of government may be to protect children.

Further, there is no presumption that a 13-year old can voluntarily agree to be the subject and therefore is not being exploited.

Bottom line is that there is no reason for "art" to include the "private parts" of a minor.

There is nothing beautiful about a minors private parts other then to the parents, anyone else looking at the privatre parts of someone whos not old enough to make the decisions of showing thier "private parts" is looking for the wrong reason.

There is simply no need to antagonize the pedophiles and give them a person to stalk and fantisize about, possible opening the door that was never opened for the person to move on his urgse in his neighborhood...

Everything has its limits, even freedom of expression...

For those of you who think this is art (and maybe it is on some level), I ask you this:

If it was YOUR daughter (or child) would you let the pics be taken and displayed?

It entirely depends on the relationship between the subject and the artist... is it a parent who is depicting their children or is it more voyeristic?

When I was in school studying graphic arts a few years back, we had a very gifted photography teacher. Serveral of his works hung in the halls of the arts building. One was of two boys, about 9 or 10 skinny dipping in a stream. I was walking through the hall one day and overheard these two women talking about how disgusting those photos were and how the school administration should do something about them...

...As I walked by I commented that their father took the shot and that he taught at the school.

The women shut up.

We as a society have become knee jerk judgemental with little knowledge of what we are judging.

Nowhere in the article cited does it state what the photos are other than of naked kids, or the relationship the artist has of them.

For all we know based on it, the kids could be just splashing around in the bath.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by grover]

Originally posted by jamie83
It doesn't matter if you think it's art or not. The child pornography laws have been enacted to first and foremost protect children. The idea would be to error on the side of protecting children. Society will survive if it is prohibited to display photos of naked minors. One of the few worthy functions of government may be to protect children.

I agree with this completely.. and I'm an artist. As someone said earlier.. if this were "alloud" it would set a dangerous legal precendent which predators would abuse.

"Child porn on his computer? no.. thats art."

If he's not charged it will open the floodgates for this defence and could make 'child nudes' culturally more acceptable [blurring the lines].. yet if he is charged it could create a backlash in the art world and prompt similar art trends in protest [and because it attracts publicity]. I hope officials can find a middle ground.

Here in the USA Miley Cirus and her parents caught all kinds of blowback for a VanityFair photo. She wasnt naked, and it looked more like art then this photo did. While I would not let my daughter pose for any photo like this, I find it interesting that we grow more and more accepting of the sexualization of young children. We cant always let the photographer or artist stand behind the "its art" shield. Where will it end? 12 year old boy in missionary with a 11 year old girl, but its in black and white so its art? The parents need to keep this kind of thing from happening to our kids. Its hard enough with all the crap they see at school and on TV. I saw thong panties for 10 year girls in a store, what the hell does a 10 year old girl need thong panites for? And the said "Juicey" on the front!

so what is art and what is not? all those paintings of venus and cupid, essentially a woman and a child in an explicitly sexual depiction (venus and cupid had an incestuous affair), google "venus cupid" for an overview of the huge quantity of paintings on this subject, are they art or are they child pornography, and if they are art, is it because of the medium rather than the subject?

if it is the medium that makes it art, then photography of any nature cannot be art, if it is the subject then, from what i gather, the photos being discussed are not of a sexual subject so do not qualify as pornography.

i think it's clear to anybody with the slightest bit of common sense the difference between an adult nude and normal pornography, i think the only thing stopping someone from differentiating the two in this case is a preconceived idea, which is enough to give the photos artistic merit.

weather they are in good taste or not is a different matter, and honestly, there's a hell of a lot of art out there that is made in bad taste.

just my 2c.