It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:44 AM
well after all the replies in this thread by mods and super mods - suddenyl MIRTHFUL_ME gets the hump and i am censored.

[edit on 29/5/08 by Harlequin]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by deadline527
I just dont think he expected such a negative reaction by one person while thousands of others support him.

The Prime Minister of Australia has stated how he finds the photos distatestful. Newspaper columnists and reader-opinions are equally divided about whether or not the photos are 'art' or 'kiddy-porn'.

There's more than one person disagreeing with the artist, both in the Australian media and in this very ATS thread.

It's such a contentious issue - I don't know the answer to it. I can agree with arguments from both sides. Yet, at the same time, it's an argument about something insignificant in terms of the world's problems, or is it? Censorship is almost always evil, but so is kiddy-porn. Which way should it be judged?

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:55 AM
what about this album cover by Blind Faith? It is of a topless underage girl holding an airplane. This caused a lot of controversy when it came out in '69. Im pretty sure this album cover is still in print. ( I cropped the image for ATS)

The verdict ....


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:01 AM
this is more than likely being blown out of proportion by people who don't understand the concept of art and that have sick minds as well

[edit on 5/29/2008 by JPhish]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:03 AM

Originally posted by MrsEsterhouse

Reminds me of the Scorpions album Virgin Killer that depicts a naked prepubescent girl on the cover in a much more sexual position - did any of them go to jail for this? Whats that? No they did not.

Here is an EDITED version of the cover :

Think of everything that will be affected based on this judges ruling...

[edit on 29-5-2008 by deadline527]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by ericds

And if I post a picture of my naked 1-year old son running at the beach and title it "first beach trip", is that an illegal photo?

Or if I put a picture of my three-year old having a bath in a bucket?

I have to agree with the poster who said a Paedophile will think his thoughts regardless of the clothing. Several years ago there was a "scandal" when pictures of my school's rowing team in their uniforms turned up on an apparently gay website and titled something like "check out the boys' bods"...

for a little further reading, try this. It should help to muddy the waters a little further

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by MrsEsterhouse

It's still the inside cover on the CD and, SHOCK, HORROR, she's the drummer's daughter...

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

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.

No, you are completely wrong on this. The legal principle behind statutory rape is that 13-year olds are incapable of giving consent for sex. Therefore, and sex with a 13-year old is by statute defined as rape.

This same principle is applied to the minor children who are subjects of nude photographs. I.e., they are not sufficiently mature to have their alleged consent justify the act of having them strip naked to be photographed.

Originally posted by verylowfrequencyI 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.

No, your arrogance comes from your presumptions about me and what you incorrectly deduced about me based on your lame analysis.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
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 the pictures inappropriate for public display, but I don't interject my fears or fantasies about what could have occurred while making them as you did.

This is more indefensible nonsense on your part. I never called her a stripper. I said that the minor girl was put into a situation by adults in which she was encouraged to strip naked in front of a photographer so that he could take photos for monetary gain. That, in my opinion, is pimping out your own child, and is probably child abuse in most jurisdictions.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
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. Tor defend your theory that everyone including the photographer must be sexual deviants. We don't know that, there is know evidence to that and that is probably not what led to their removal. I find bringing that to the thread without evidence disgusting.

Again, you are completely wrong and misguided. I have no "theory" relative to any discussion of sexual deviancy. I never said any rape occurred. I said all along that the first priority of our government, our society, is to err on the side of protecting minor children from being exploited. There is no way to justify the act of photographing a nude 13-year old girl by claiming the photos are "artistic" or done with the child's consent without setting up a legal precedent that would allow children to be exploited by any variety of photographers claiming to be "artists."

That's why there were laws made against such things. This isn't about art vs. porn, it's about protecting a minor child from being potentially harmed so that some "artist" can make a few bucks from photos of her nude body.

It's really that simple.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:12 AM

Originally posted by jamie83

This isn't about art vs. porn

Yes it is about art vs porn (you've read six pages and can't get THAT?!?)

it's about protecting a minor child from being potentially harmed so that some "artist" can make a few bucks from photos of her nude body.

It's really that simple.

and no, it absolutely isn't that simple (see same preceding six pages).

edit: accuracy issues!

[edit on 29-5-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:17 AM

Originally posted by JPhish
this is more than likely being blown out of proportion by people who don't understand the concept of art and that have sick minds as well

[edit on 5/29/2008 by JPhish]

Thanks. I'm starting a collection of arrogant, condescending, intellectually elitist comments. I think your comment fits perfectly!

No, this isn't about people who don't understand art. It's about protecting children from potentially emotionally damaging situations.

What's really ironic is that people like you support the use of minor children in nude photographs while at the same time accusing others of having sick minds for wanting to protect children.

Do you lack so much self-awareness that you cannot see your own hypocrisy?

Here, I'll help make it clearer for you:

Your position: "I believe minor children should be encouraged to strip naked and photographed for financial gain, and people who disagree with me are sick."

If I misstated your position please feel free to expound on it.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by deadline527

I'm afraid you're wrong about created depictions of minors in sexual poses. That is against the law in the U.S.

The picture I saw of Miley Cyrus showed of a bare back, I could not see her front side, so I don't assume or fantasize that she was topless. Backless does not equal topless - except in some peoples minds.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:36 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by deadline527

I'm afraid you're wrong about created depictions of minors in sexual poses. That is against the law in the U.S.

The picture I saw of Miley Cyrus showed of a bare back, I could not see her front side, so I don't assume or fantasize that she was topless. Backless does not equal topless - except in some peoples minds.

Nope, she WAS topless - that was the whole reason for the controversy, but they deemed it ok because the grand parents were there as well as the parents consented.

Vanity Fair editors respond: "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley. In fact, when BRUCE HANDY interviewed Miley, he asked her about the photo and she was very cheerful about it and thought it was perfectly fine."

However, a Disney Channel spokesperson says: "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

What makes this any different?

[edit on 29-5-2008 by deadline527]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by jamie83

How about leaving the arrogant elitist belittling comments out of this thread. So, now everyone who disagrees with you gets a label, eh?

The fact is, I can see both sides of the issue, but you are so fixated that naked minors is equated to sex and abuse that you cannot see any perspective other than your own. I'm sorry I can't help you see beyond your current limits. I really hope you are someday able to leave your little world and get out and see the rest of it some day, you might be surprised and see that the world is not all full of pedo priest.

We are not your enemies here, you don't need to call us names just because we don't all see the world the same.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by deadline527

Than please show me a link to any photo of her topless. The photo I saw showed her backless. If it showed her topless we would see her breasts, but it doesn't. However people don't like the idea that some will fantasize that she could be topless, so that's why it was a big stink. The Reality is she is completely covered and again we can see more by going to any beach. For all we know she could have pasties or a glue on bra on under that towel or whatever it is.

Show me proof, don't give me speculation.

Pardon me everyone for going off topic, but Disney exploits the hell out of children and their families for money. I'll leave at that for this thread.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

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]

just to expound....I AM an award winning and published artist. But my subjects are not naked people, be they children or otherwise. And the biggest digust of all, is that this photographer will make a lot of money photoing nude kids, while I and people like me will make little if any off of our subject matter.

But part of that is because I also know the 'world' of art, and the elites within it, the ones without who's endorsement you have little chance of advancing into big-time. And I know it is full of homosexuals and many folks of vastly different 'lifestyles' than mine. I will not capitulate myself to their "standards" (which are offensive to me) for monetary gain or noteriety.

So you choose to deem me as not being an artist, or some kind of lowbrow prude, and thats your opinion and choice to make. Please then, allow me to have my opinion and choice without you assuming I am not what I say I am.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:27 AM
The responses to the initial post here and the arguments that are no raging highlight the stupidity of these self-righteous moral zealots who are for censorship.

Someone for example refered to 21 as the legal age of adulthood, another stated 18. We live in a global society and yet small minded idiots amongst us are trying to impose their dubious morals on everyone else.

Well, here is a wake up call to those ignorant fools; in many nations the age of consent, of becoming an adult, is 14, in others 16 (the age of consent here in the UK is 16, but for some things you have to be 18), in the US it is normally 18 as far as I can tell (yet in most states you have to be 21 to drink!), and then in other nations and cultures the accepted ages of adulthood are much lower and in a few they are higher.

Does this not tell you something? NONE of the people on here claiming that it is 'morally ok only for erotic ('erotic' does not mean 'pornography' - just to clarify, in fact an image does not even have to be nude to be 'erotic') pictures of 21 (or 18 or whatever) year olds and above to be produced really has a case. To say that it is wrong for images of a nude 16 year old for example is to say that millions of other people, with their legal systems etc are immoral, and likewise, for whatever age parameter you set.

Basically what I am saying here is that it is fundamentally stupid to try and pluck an age out of the air when it becomes acceptable to photograph people naked. If we attempt to then we just go down a very slippery slope. All that we should do, if we are actually intelligent, thinking human beings, is try to avoid abuse of anyone no matter what their age.

Leave art and images alone. Stop this self defeating, fundamentally misguided and wrong witchhunt.. basically GROW UP! There are millions of people suffering real abuse and hardship in the world every second - lets focus on helping them instead of trying to criminalise people who have just made images - and where the models got paid NOT ABUSED!!!!!!

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:27 AM
I think it's extremely sad that people see this image as sexual, and lets face it the only people that have a problem with this are those that equate naked 13yr old girl = child porn. Or established, famous, successful, skillful photographer taking a picture of the human form = child porn maker.

How rediculous! If you cannot look at this artwork and see beauty, innocence, form, texture, lighting, craft, skill, time, immortalisation, thought, expression, technology, contemplation and pride then I suggest you not look, for you are clearly one of the people whom you claim to be protecting children against!
Either that or you are so closed minded that you think all men are peadophiles, or looking at a naked kid will make them one!

This girl may only be 13 but she consented, she was not forced nor "stripped" as someone put it. Her parents consented, the artist is clearly an artist and not a porn producer. I would imagine she'll be proud of that photograph for the rest of her life.

We were all born naked, clothes are a human invention, the human body is one of the most beautiful and wonderous evolutions of nature.

It's because of 'people like you' that most men feel concerned about peoples opinion when walking past a park or watching their kids in gym at school.
It's because of 'people like you' that men feel they can't return a smile and a wave at a kid without worrying about someone thinking they are 'grooming' them.
It's becuase of you that I now have to ask the permission of every parent at a football game if I want to take a picture of my son scoring his first goal........It's because of you that some people would now think twice about helping a lost or injured child for fear of accusations, how pathetic you are......a very very sad world indeed.

I guess in years to come, because of 'people like you' men will have to use a seperate area of the beach where naked children are not allowed. Lets take this to the n'th degree, surgeons and doctors will need to shut their eyes when operating, because of 'people like you'




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

Than please show me a link to any photo of her topless. The photo I saw showed her backless. If it showed her topless we would see her breasts, but it doesn't.

I did see the photo on another link and yes the girl was about 13, and showed her little, newly formed boobs, nipples and all.

Of course I'm describing the 13-year old girl's nipples and boobs with this specific language on purpose. Many people here think it's no problem for a parent to take their 13-year old girl to a photographer and say, "Go ahead sweetie... take off your shirt, bra and all, and flash this dude your boobies so we can all make some money."

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by stratsys-sws


Your "it's people like you post" was one of the most self-righteous, condescending pieces of crap I've ever read on ATS.

This issue has zero to do with artistic expression, or drawing a conclusion that nude photos of prepubescent girls are sexual vs. artistic.

The issue has everything to do with protecting the welfare of minor children so that they will not be exploited for financial gain by placing them in a position to strip naked and be photographed so their guardians, and a guy with a camera who calls himself an "artist", can pocket some extra spending money.

There is no legal basis that I know of that allows for 13-year old children to have the capacity to give legal consent for being photographed nude. This is one of the more ridiculous claims you make.

So where do you suggest the line be drawn in the name of protecting children from being exploited?

Should 8-year old girls who give their consent be photographed laying naked on a bed? How about artistic photos of 12-year old boys with an erection? That would be natural too, right? I'm sure with the right dramatic lighting, shadows, and background, these photos could be made to look "artistic."

Can't you see that your position on this cannot be extended to any conclusion that doesn't lead to the legalized sexual exploitation of children? Or worse yet, your "logic" ultimately leads to a government bureaucracy that sits in judgment of which naked children's photos are "art" and which are child abuse.

So tell me, Robbie, who is going to be looking a naked photos of children all day deciding which are "art" and which are child porn? And what happens to all the children who were exploited in the name of "art" while these cases wind their way through the court systems?

And it's irrelevant, not to mention a bit naive and self-absorbed, to believe that the naked bodies of these children exemplify natural beauty, and therefore this somehow justifies the photos as "art."

We are in deep trouble as a society if we reach a point where parents and photographers are permitted to profit by turning photos of children's naked bodies into a commodity to sell to the highest bidder.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:55 AM
If Henson knew how to paint he could make near exact duplicates of these photos. Whats the difference there. Also why can i look in National geographic and see full frontal nudity of African Tribeswoman, underage ones as well.

Although I don't care for these photos myself. Being an artist, I have to say, it's wrong what they're doing to this guy.

I mean really, any sick pedophile can find a plethora of sources to get their rocks off. They don't need to look at half naked, darkly lit, children who they and thier parents consented to these "art photos", to be taken.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in