Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

Originally posted by leearco
It has been all over the news the last few days here in Vic.

If anyone else took naked pics of children they would go to jail. Parents approval or not. Why should it be any different for 'artists'?

if a mother takes naked pictures of her kids in a bathtub playing around in the suds, should she go to jail?

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by metamagic
I find the constant obsession to equate sex and nudity in the US and other fundamentalist societies, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, quite irrational.

I find the constant need for nudity in art quite irrational.

yeah, stabbings, beheadings, gunshot wounds, cutting of flesh, CSI morgue shots, violent depictions of human bodies... these are much more exceptable, right??? i mean they are on T.V. every night for all our kids to watch, and in movies, and in video games...even in sports shots, they'll show an actual broken leg/arm on a young adult. yeahhhhhhh!!!! these are just fine for all of you holier-then-thou. WE LOVE TO SHOW OUR KIDS VIOLENT ACTS, IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY!!!! but hey!!! show a naked body??? now you are OUT OF LINE PAL, AND A PERVERT!!!!!

[edit on 2-11-2008 by jimmyx]

Taking pictures of girls under the age of 18 is the most disgusting thing inthe whole world and that person deserves to have the # kicked out of him for being so fuk'n sick and they deserve prison time for life!!!!!!!!!!

From what I can tell about the artist's style, use of shadows, dim lighting, soft focus and grain; it seems to be art not porn.
I don't see this as exploitation of young girls - it is more likely an easy target for prudish politicians trying to make a name for themselves.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by DoNotBelieveThem]

There are so many things that I want to say to everyone in this thread that I'm afraid I have neither the time, the patience, or the willpower to sustain me through all of it... but I shall endeavor in the least to try.

I've long been a voice of dissent against anyone who tends towards a righteous set of beliefs, self contained and fulfilling in ones own expectations. Whether it is something I agree with or not, I look to the corners and niches of arguments that people had best not say out of fear of their fellow man.

But to start of somewhat light and in response to something Jamie has cited in various posts in this thread, and others have trumpeted; It is not the governments responsibility to protect children.

It is yours. And if you fail in that protection, you have nobody but yourself to blame. It isn't the governments responsibility to protect any of us, at least here in the U.S.A. it isn't. People, when you abdicate your responsibilities as a parent, you abdicate more than merely the safety of your children...

You abdicate your own safety by allowing the government to redefine you as children.

That being said, on the subject of Pornography, Sexuality, Art and Human Dignity... art is not merely the grecian beauty of the classical oil paintings during the rennaissance. Art is the subject of Russian Disdain, it was the project of crushing oppression in the film Equilibrium. Art is the freedom of voice and soul and spirit. It is the essence of life that pushes us beyond our comfortable limits, brings us to tears, stirs us to emotion.. anger, lust, loss, fear, sadness, hope, whimsy and whit.

Our society is so afraid of itself, our modern civilized nature so tainted and impure with fear of Humanity in its rawest and most bleak or inspiring. Clinging to our mediocrity we hug it to our breast like a blanket from heaven, afraid to step outside our boundaries and to embrace the wonderful, the monstrous. We fear to dream lest our dreams be shattered by the expectation and grinding need of society for its safety.

Safety.

And in the puritanical hearts of those who decry the visage of pubescent blush fresh on the supple form of an adolescents first steps into the world of sexuality, sensuality... and awkward metamorphosis... they cannot see what is wrong in their own hearts.

Father's and Mothers, you will never protect your children from Sexuality. Your daughter's will have sex, and a lot of them will like it. Even more of them will eventually get pregnant and have children of their own. Your son's will spend their tender tweenage years yearning and fantasizing of visceral, primal sex in practically every situation that their hormone poisoned minds can envision... about most of every female around them.

THIS is normal. THIS is humanity. Pubescence IS sexuality. Pubescence IS adulthood, Pubescence is the power of procreation and the bodies of blushing young maidens and lanky, lean squires desire.

Or have you adults so soon forgotten your own panting, heated yearnings of those first moments when you recognized with agonizing vision a sexual attraction you had NEVER experienced before?

And teenagers? Teenagers have sex. PRETEENS have sex. Where they can get it, IF they can get it, they'll do everything they can to get it because their bodies are raging for it in those akward years.

Of course, the proprieties of a civilized society will curb some of this tendency, it will attempt to delay and stave off the lust with as ineffective a strategy as one might surmise.

Yet sexuality in youth isn't the only thing... there is a lot of confusion as well. A lot of self esteem issues in relation to the changes going through their bodies... and in our great Western Wisdom, we demonize the flesh and anything sensual.

What? No, not just for teenagers. FOR EVERYONE. There is such deep seated shame and embarrassment about sex in our culture, and much of it starts from those awkward pubescent years where we never truly feel confident in ourselves, and then the real world hammers that sensation home.

Some of you here rant about the sexualization of our teenagers, and how unwholesome things have become. None of you have read much, have you?

Three to four generations ago, a goodly portion of our populace were marrying at 12 to 15. Girls were having sex then too. IN fact, what we define as "CHILDREN" were having sex as soon as they were recognized as capable of doing so in a lot of cases.

You go, you ask the eldest of your family members what age they got married at. What age their first children were born at.

And then you come back here and rant at me about how we shouldn't be using the past as example, all the while you whine and moan about a fictitious past where preteens and teenagers were wholesome and revered and protected from sex, sexuality, nudity and what have you.

If your whole family is somehow the reflection of this puritanical epitomy of perfection, I'll eat my hat.

Let me make myself as clear as crystal, I've never been in support of harming, molesting, raping or otherwise damaging children in the least. I find it just as heartbreaking and traumatizing as any of you...

But I won't equate any of those actions with Seeing children or preteens in a sexual or sensual light. Such appreciations have been made for AEONS people. I personally don't have such a prediliction, but who are YOU to condemn anyone for finding something sensual or sexual or provocative?

Take the plank out of thine eye.

Naturally, this post won't ever be enough to elaborate the nuance and tenor of my perspective. I welcome the accusation of pedophile, the word throwing of immoral or morally degenerate...

Those who offer it are intellectual cowards for not contemplating my words carefully, and for reducing the myriad complexities of a person down to pedantic slurs and simplicities that serve only to comfort the boxes of your minds.

Naturally, my posts are provocative and antagonistic... I wish to provoke, I WISH to antagonize with words and thoughts. For what worth is there in speaking if you cannot find the strength to SAY something of ANY worth or originality?

Google Video Link

where is the pictures in question??? anybody know?? I can't make an informed opinion if I can't see what we're talking about!!!!

reply to post by TheColdDragon


That's about the best post I've ever read. Not just do I agree on every point, I also couldn't have put it better (language barrier).

May I just add something to the thread. I remember, when I was working in Sydney, Bondi Beach. 5 years ago, the headlines read something like: TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS AT THE BEACH PROHIBITED. And it is true that some people have taken pictures of other people, naked ones, topless and even children. (I have taken pics of my kids all the time at the beach) But when then somebody comes and tells me and accuses me of something it wasn't, I don't know where this country is going. I left after 10 years for several reasons.

How is taking pictures of naked people art? You could probably take those same pictures with the people involved fully clothed and the only difference it would make would be that it wouldn't catch someone's attention. If you have to be an artist to be able to catch the "humanity" or whatever the hell it is in the photo, then that really only says to me that you have to be really desensitized to looking at naked people. Although, if the thirteen year olds took the pics themselves and made sure no one else got them, then nobody would give a damn. Also, the parents and kids are okay with it, and I actually know a lot of 13 year olds who are smarter and more mature than some "adults". So, since it looks like logic and politics can't sort this out, let's go to religion. I'm a Christian, and I believe that women and men should dress modestly. Meaning that they should only expose themselves to their spouses. Also, sex is supposed to be sacred. If you can't decide if something's "art" or porn, then let's just be safe and call it porn. That way, no one has to take it, no one has to pose for it, and stupid arguments like these don't have to exist. Call me ignorant, call me stupid, call me whatever you want. But if parents can't think ahead of time enough that there are probably going to be negative repercussions for saying okay when asked if they want some guy to take pictures of their children for money, then maybe those people shouldn't be parents.

reply to post by eyewitness86


First of all, you mispelled GOD. Try to fix that in the future.
Second, GOD did give us this body. But that does not mean that we should go out and take pictures od ourselves and each other naked and post them for the world to see. Wearing clothes was a punishment given to us by GOD because Adam and Eve disobeyed HIS big rule. HE told us to dress modestly and we should only willingly expose ourselves to our spouses.
Now, for the whole medical books thing, I agree with you. We should have drawings of the human body to help us know how to operate (and other such things). But those books are used to help people, not simply for eye candy to be sold for profit (or whatever else people do with it). So just because the people making a profit from it says it's okay because it's "art", that doesn't mean that it is.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Where unoriginality is, truth may lie.
Sorry, I tried to make a little poetic opening one-liner. You're really good with words.
But, in all seriousness, just because we have primal instinct to have sex, that does not mean we should embrace it. Preteens and teens do have sex, but that does not mean that they should. For instance, it is a primal thing to use force to get what you want. Maybe even kill. But that doesn't make it right. If we all resorted back to our neanderthalic instincts, all hell would break loose.
Now, some people may feel uncomfortable when they even think of how their parents made their body. But I am not one of those people. I am a 13 year old and yes, I have wanted to have sex. Very badly, in fact. But I am glad that I didn't. At least, not now. The only time that sex should be acceptable is when a husband and a wife both agree to do it and then do it with just each other. Any other time, and the people have done something wrong.
But, no, I am not against teen or preteen sex at all. Just as long as the people having sex are married heterosexually, it is an absolutely wonderful thing. People should spend less time focusing on not having sex and more time on when to have sex.
Thanks for reading all of this!

reply to post by tezzajw


There is a very fine line when it comes to these types of issues in the art world.

On one extreme, censorship of any kind CANNOT be tolerated, because it is believed by many to hinder the creative process, which in turn diminishes any chance of some sort of artistic revolution to rise up.

On the other, one could ask "Where do we draw the line?", if they let this one get away with it, what's next? People photographing murder because to some it's an art form?

From an artist standpoint.... scratch that, I don't even know what these pictures are, for all I know, the police officer got offended because it showed both the boy and the girl taking a bath together. I've seen many a photo of friends and relatives in the bath with their siblings.

It's definitely a tough call, child-like innocence can only go so far before it crosses the line into perversion. I'd say no nudies unless you're over 18. With written consent.

Lemme see the pictures then I'll be able to make a more rounded call on it.

-JR

edit: typo's and such

[edit on 5-12-2008 by bandaidctrl]