Is pictures of naked children in medical books considered porno??? What about pictures of statues of baby angels. I mean if it is for artistic value then its not porno but to distribute them in my mind is porno.

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione today said he had a strong personal reaction to the nature of the seized images.

I find that interesting-- the police commissioner had a "strong personal reaction". Personally, after viewing some of this man's work online, I don't find it to be sexual in nature at all. Not even close.

Perhaps the work in question here is something like a Rorschach test and people viewing it will project their own reactions onto it. Like Police Commissioner Scipione... Maybe that's the intention of the work in the first place-- to expose those personal reactions.


[edit on 5/28/08 by kattraxx]

To be a model, you usually have to sign a release form to pose in any photos that are going to be seen by the public. Maybe the parents were OK with it and signed the consent forms. Hopefully they were present at the shoot. We usually dont mind seeing adult nudes or nude baby pictures, so what about the years in between? I'd have to see them to understand, really, and make a judgement. It just doesnt sound bad to me. What if I painted a nude 12 year old? I dont think people would freak about that if it was tasteful. See, "tasteful nudes" are a lot different than exploitive porn shots. BTW Has this ever happened before?

edited to add: I looked at more of his works online. I have not yet seen anything that could be conceived as porn- so, lets see the pics in question!!!!

[edit on 28-5-2008 by raven bombshell]

I guess the point is not so much if its art or not, probably is... I guess its a matter of good sense and cultural values.

Originally posted by TrailGator
I am an artist
why is it necessary to be photographing these children naked? Why? If its because its "art", that absurd IMO.
Aren't there enough subjects for this man's camera to shoot so that naked children aren't necessary??

If you were truly an artist you would not ask such questions. I can think of many subjects that are called Art that I find disgusting, but that's ART. I'm amazed that someone who pretends to be an Artist to come on ATS and would advocate Censorship of Art and imply that any one subject is not worthy of Art because you it makes you uncomfortable. I have not seen the pictures, however nakedness is not wrong or bad it is life, it is reality. Why do we need to hide reality? I'm more appalled by images of the dead or people being killed. Hide from the truth and make your reality a lie.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by Dr Love
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?

I really need to know what the parental status is of these kids. Was there a parent present when these pictures were taken?

Honestly, regardless of any artistic value, if that was my daughter, this guy could measure the rest of his existence with an egg timer........NO JOKE!

Peace

It's really none of our business who they are, is it? That in itself is dangerous, perhaps more dangerous than the whole subject itself, by asking your are insinuating perversion where none existed before. Not only that you're implying you may have an agenda to fulfill after acquiring such information. How do we know you are interested in their well being? After all you are an outsider. Why do we as Americans always stick our noses in to other peoples business not knowing where they come from or what there perspective is?

Nakedness does not equal sex in much of the world and even if there is some sexuality to it, it sounds to me like it is completely innocent. Many place in the world people ran around naked in complete innocents, until Bible thumper's came around and taught them shame and destroyed their innocents forever.

If it was your daughter you wouldn't have allowed it, obviously it's not within your comfort zone. Insinuating that they guy did it in secret without the parents as some sort of subterfuge for sexual exploitation is just your upbringing, fears and morals confusing the reality of the situation.

Maybe they see their children as beautiful separate human beings and by allowing a professional to capture them in their full innocents and nakedness at that stage in their lives, it is something that just captures that moment in time with greater resolution and for the children or teens they can look back one day and see themselves as they were. - I don't know what the artist perception or purpose is without looking at them.


[edit on 29-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

If you were truly an artist you would not ask such questions. I can think of many subjects that are called Art that I find disgusting, but that's ART. I'm amazed that someone who pretends to be an Artist to come on ATS and would advocate Censorship of Art and imply that any one subject is not worthy of Art because you it makes you uncomfortable.

It's not the images themselves, in a vacuum, that are problematic. It's the act of how the photographer obtained the images that's the real issue. I don't care if the mother defends it. What else would she say? She's the one who caused her minor daughter to strip naked and be photographed.

The issue is that somewhere there must be a line drawn that protects the children from being victimized. A young girl who would willingly go along with her parents pimping her out is no less a victim than one who would protest.

At 13 you're able to make choices of your own. You are old enough to know whether you want to be photographed naked or not. It's really not that complicated. She didn't mind apparently.
Seriously though this is a real question. At what point does a naked girl go from art to kiddy porn?

In the supreme court case Jacobellis v Ohio Justice Potter Stewart remarked "I know it when I see it" in reference to obscenity that in the U.S has been the standard. It is a community decision on what constitutes obscene and what constitutes art. this decision is sometimes made by a judge whos job is to well I guess judge. It is the artist's job to create art if his or hers art is decided to be obscene then that artist should work on their art in such a way to help educate their community as to why it is art and not obscenity.

As to the poster who replied that if woman went about without clothes men could get nothing done that is why we wear clothes. Wow what must you think about men in general? I always thought we wear clothes as a protection against the elements individual expression and pockets.

I remember the first time I drew a nude model for art class and that model was imo a very attractive young lady. Yes for the very first 5 sec I was like wow after that my thoughts were more like crap can she stop moving for a second my drawing is getting all screwed up.

Were these pictures of girls art or obscene I don't know I haven't seen them yet. But the community decided they were obscene and so moved on to remove them however a discussion is now taking place as to whether they do constitute art which means opinions are now being formed and people are thinking not a bad result I believe.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
I cannot change your views of seeing or hearing about non-sexual naked pictures that you automatically associate with stripping or prostitution which implies sexual perversion. You have put your own mind in the gutter yourself and are unable to see beyond your personal psychosis.

Cool... a real-life example of Obama-like intellectual, condescending arrogance.

Back on point, placing a 13-year old girl in a situation where she is expected to remove all her clothing to be photographed would be considered child abuse in every state in the U.S., and probably in most countries in the world.

Most legal systems recognize the fact that 13-year old girls do not have the intellectual maturity to have their own decisions in these matters used as justification. This is why there are laws pertaining to statutory rape.

Originally posted by Zealott
At 13 you're able to make choices of your own. You are old enough to know whether you want to be photographed naked or not. It's really not that complicated. She didn't mind apparently.
Seriously though this is a real question. At what point does a naked girl go from art to kiddy porn?

Wow.... now that's a real stretch. Apparently she didn't mind? Sounds like something that a man on trial for statutory rape would use as a defense.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bloodcircle
But on the other hand, who knows how a paedophiles mind can twist things.

It doesn't matter what the pedophile's mind does. He could look at fully clothed children and have his thoughts.
Or girls on the beach or a baby in diapers or a 16-year-old boy in jeans. We cannot control the mind of a pedophile.

That was my point, which I made in relation to other posts in this thread.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bloodcircle
Clearly these images are portrayed in a sexually adult manner. empty bottles of champagne, the guy passed out, her toppless...

Yeah, I think that makes a difference.

Yet these were considered ultimately, OK! They appeared in a fashion magazine, and was deemed not to be of a sexual nature.

I was just highliting the hypocritical, IMO, nature of the media, which is why I then said -

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bloodcircle
We live in a world gone topsy turvey..

You got that right!

I've known that for a long time, but it still suprises me when I least expect it..

Guys relax, he was taking these pictures for Michael Jackson. So they are perfectly safe! -- Sorry, I couldnt help myself.

Honestly, this is such a line walking subject. I personally would not want my kids photographed naked by anyone, nor would I find entertainment from viewing such a photo. That is my personal opinion.

Regards,
Aaron

This is a very tough law. I have not seen the pictures mentioned but I have seen his other artwork and from what I have heard, it seems like very artistic picture. The thing that bothers me is the fact that in this day in age, I can make true to life pictures on a computer of child pornography, exact replicates of anything you would see in a picture without even being able to tell the difference while posing them in the most sexual positions ever - but because its not real, its legal... yet to use the innocence and purity as a statement in art is looked down upon? Come on... I really hope this does not end up with this very talented individual in jail over something as iffy as this.

This reminds me of the Miley Cyrus controversy where she was photographed topless, albeit covered up, for a magazine at the age of fifteen. She was covered up, as is the young lady in this artists picture apparently in the places that matter.. so whats the big deal.

He wanted to draw a controversy over these pictures, and he got it... I just dont think he expected such a negative reaction by one person while thousands of others support him.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by deadline527]

[edit on 29-5-2008 by deadline527]

Originally posted by jamie83
This is why there are laws pertaining to statutory rape.

Maybe I'm arrogant because you can't seem to talk about the subject in the thread without out adding unfounded derogatory sexual comments that can only come from someone who has a perverted view of the world. Now your talking about statutory rape which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

Just where do you get information in the links that anyone was raped? I seem arrogant because I don't fall for the lies you injected into the thread, sorry, but when I see BS I call BS regardless of my position on the subject.

Had you not called her a stripper by implying they striped her or now added rape to your comments I wouldn't have responded to your posts. I find naked pictures inappropriate for public display except for museums and the like, but I don't interject my fears or fantasies about what could have occurred while making them as you did.

You only add it to your post in order to steer the weaker readers into thinking that a statutory rape occurred whilst taking nude artistic photos of a minor. In order to defend your theory that everyone including the photographer must be sexual deviants. We don't know that, there is no evidence to that and that is probably not what led to their removal. I find your bringing that to the thread without evidence disgusting.

Argue about reality instead of arrogant speculation and I wont throw arrogance back at you.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]