Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Art is in the eye of the beholder, but "child porn" is defined. And these pictures are NOT porn. Pornography is explicit depiction of sexual subject matter. There's nothing sexual about the pictures.

In my opinion, it's a very contentious subject because on the one hand, yes the definition is there. But on the other hand, who knows how a paedophiles mind can twist things.

But as I said, I don't know what went on before hand with the shoot, and I don't take the high ground, but suffice to say I wouldn't want my child posing nude.

I suggest that if someone thinks these pictures are sexually explicit, they should check their own context. Nakedness does NOT equal sexual.

How about this recent news story. A difference of 3 years, Zippora Seven is 16.

Topless 16-year-old shocks modelling agency

A NEW Zealand modelling agency says it is shocked that an Auckland 16-year-old on its books has appeared topless in an Australian magazine.
Zippora Seven and 16-year-old male model Levi Clarke featured in the shots in an 18-page spread in lifestyle and fashion magazine Russh Australia.

One image shows the pair in a bubble bath, with Zippora topless and Levi's eyes closed, as if he has passed out. Four bottles of champagne are visible.

Zippora also appeared topless riding a horse.

...

Russh editor Natalie Shukur defended the pictures, saying they were a homage to supermodel Kate Moss and her one-time boyfriend, actor Johnny Depp, and that Russh readers "get it".

Source

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

Yet these were ultimately allowed as they were apparantly a depiction of Johnny Depp and Kate Moss when they were together.

We live in a world gone topsy turvey..

Originally posted by jamie83
A custodian of a minor child does not have the right to pimp out the child to an "artist" for the purpose of having nude photos taken, nor does a minor child have the legal capacity to offer his or her consent.

There was no pimping done. Like it or not, believe it or not, to many people there's no difference in allowing these pictures or fully clothed pictures of their child being taken.

No one if forcing anyone to look at them.

There is absolutely no law that grants a person the unmitigated right to cause a child to disrobe and pose for photographs.

Laws do not grant rights. They limit them. And no one "caused" the child to disrobe. They disrobed of their own free will and desire.

I have to question the motives of the parents who allowed this. Was it for money?
Someone said it expressed innocence. In the world we live in some pervert is getting his jollies out of these pictures. How is that preserving the childs innocence? We wear clothing in society to cover up and hide our bodies from sight.
The reason we do this is because men would never get anything done from staring at all the naked women. I have no desire to see a little girl nude.
If a grown woman wants to appear nude for art or what have you, then thats fine, but not a child.
I could never put one of my children on display for anyone to see nude. For one, they might grow up to hate me for it one day, and two, I would never give a pervert the pleasure of seeing them that way. Why take the chance. In someones mind somewhere the innocence is being taken away from them by the vile thoughts of a confused individual.
Even if the child is not physically being molested, they are in the mind of some perv somewhere.

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

I would suggest that what you consider topsy turvey is another way of saying we live in a world that's fast becoming devoid of any morals or values. A society lacking the most basic value of protecting children from being exploited will have no foundation on which to survive.

Honestly, it's disturbing to see how many people here at ATS are so eager to intellectualize this issue and frame it in terms of artistic expression while forgetting that there are real adolescent children involved. These kids were taken to a studio, told to strip naked, and stand in front of an dude taking pictures. This is simply degrading and abusive no matter how many times the word "art" is wrapped around the process.

I saw the picture, I was not offended by it. Would I allow my youngest, who's the same age, be photo'd nude? No. That is my choice as a parent. The parents of this child had no such qualms.

The thing with art is that everyone has a different perception of a given piece. I like Dali, others don't. If someone perceives this as pornographic or erotic, does that not speak about the individual and not the piece? Or is it fear of:

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

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.

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.

We live in a world gone topsy turvey..

You got that right!

Does anyone remember the photo book from 1975 called "Show Me: a Sexual Guide for Parents and Children" by Dr. Helga Fleischauer-Hardt and William McBride?

Now those black and white photos of children were indeed sexually explicit (does anyone remember or want to admit to their own sexual curiousity at that age) but they were most certainly not pornography, child or otherwise.

Still the authors got into hot water over it and it is now long since out of print.

I know a few couples from the time who actually gave their children copies of that book when they started asking questions... which was a lot better than my parents did... they put it off as long as possible and then gave me a medical book to read.

There is a fine line between art, erotic or otherwise and pornography...

... if we are not honest with our children about sexuality (as opposed to getting all hysterical about it) then they are going to find out other ways, many far less savory than a frank discussion.

Some "artistic" pictures puzzle me. Like the one in the link from the above poster. The only thing i felt or thought when i saw that was "what the hell is this?" I seriously have no clue what could've been going through the photographer/artists mind when s/he took that one.

And as for the possible "porn" pics by the artist, imo, i don't feel anyone under the age of adult (21) should legally be able to take nude photos, and than on top of that get money out of that. So what the preteen gave their consent and go-ahead, that doesn't make it right! I'd compare it to a Person A asking Person B to kill Person A but that'd be a little too far from a good comparison. I just feel nudity is inappropriate, especially for art sake

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


thats fine howlrunner , why dont u send me some naked pics of your nieces, nephews, or maybe some of ur own daughter or son and ill post them in what I deem is art, which with todays liberal such as yourself could be anything. At the same time lets legalize drugs, and implement socialism along with a one world order. Ther are parents nowdays that have no common sense and dont understand how not to endager thier child. Children should be keep safe at all costs, if you want art go find it someplace else.

Originally posted by jamie83
These kids were taken to a studio, told to strip naked, and stand in front of an dude taking pictures.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

Read about it

Another mother, Joelle Baudet, who posed naked for Henson as a 24-year-old, said she was approached by the photographer at a gallery opening in the mid-1990s.

"The experience was enlightening … His work is sublime and only a warped mind could associate it with such crassness. My children and I enjoy seeing his photographs daily in our home."

Originally posted by screamo
I just feel nudity is inappropriate, especially for art sake

Why? That's how we all come into the world before religion tells us it's wrong. Would it not be a short step from this to wearing Bhurqa's? Think about it.

ya know whats hilarious the amount of views this thread has in less then a day!

If any depiction of a nude under the age of 18 is "child pornography", there are a lot of classical paintings and sculptures hanging around in museums that need to be done away with.

Lets start with Michaelangelo's David - clearly a nude depiction of a teenage male.

FILTH!!

Originally posted by jamie83

These kids were taken to a studio, told to strip naked, and stand in front of an dude taking pictures. This is simply degrading and abusive no matter how many times the word "art" is wrapped around the process.

With all due respect, where did you get this idea?

Models are professional. For all we've seen these adolescents may have chosen to do this with the blessings of their parents simply because it might further their career.

Is it for me/you to say they shouldn't try to reach the top of their chosen profession?

And what are we protecting these adolescents from? For my two cents I think these parents know their kids better than I do. And hopefully they know more about what he/she understands and can accept than I do.

This idea of trying to protect children seems to be a backlash from the Jon Benet Ramsey, the 6 year old supermodel raised as a cash cow for mom and pop days. Why aren't we shutting down all the Little Miss pageants?

It most certainly appears that no one had any problems with the pictures or the context, or the methods, until one person with a little authority took it upon himself to object. And like lemmings, people scream to validate what he has said.

reply to post by tezzajw



this one reminds me of the so called artis that put a dog to die by starvation as a form of art.

Originally posted by derfred33
this one reminds me of the so called artis that put a dog to die by starvation as a form of art.

As opposed to Beethoven composing incredible music while being deaf?

Perception. Like I said earlier, sometimes art tells us more about ourselves than it does of the artist.

It baffles me how Henson's photos were confiscated. I checked out a few of the pictures and there is nothing sexual about them. If anything the pictures look quite theatrical in nature, obviously are art. This police officer's action is moving to legally define art. You cannot define art - no one, no law, no group. This definition of art is opinion and not fact. All those of you who agree with seizure are aiding in the removal of our freedoms.

*SNIP*

Peace

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/5/2008 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Nammu
Why is it illegal for them to be taken if they were done in a civilised manner, with no exploitation, with the young-adult's (I refuse to use 'child' for a 13 year old)....

I don't know anything about these photos, but anyone who considers a 13 year old to be a young adult is not being realistic.

We often think of those over the age of 18 to be young adults and indeed 18 year olds attain majority here in the US, but many specialists who work with young adults can tell you that in way too many cases, it is a stretch to consider anyone under the age of 25 an adult as our society has protracted adolescence well beyond what it was considered to be just a few generations ago.

Realistically, a 13 year old is at the "awkward age," when they still have childlike behaviors while many times appearing to have mature bodies.

No matter how you slice it, a 13 year old is not an adult by any stretch of the imagination.

The US Supreme Court ruled some while back that mere nudity is not obscene, even in the case of children. There may be a more recent ruling, although I am not aware of it.


[edit on 2008/5/28 by GradyPhilpott]

This is very dangerous. We are entering a new era of witch hunts where self-righteous morons are using force and cheap tricks to destroy freedom of expresion.

Nude images of people of all ages have been a core feature in art worldwide since people first started making images. Exploitation and abuse is always wrong, but there is no evidence been cited of either in this case.

In a related story the UK passed a law this week making it illegal to produce or own drawings, paintings or CGI of 'underage individuals' engaged in sexual or provacative activities. Ok - so again, they push it through saying that is is vital to combat peadophiles - so obviously anyone who dares question it will be branded as 'defending peadophiles' - but what it has actually done is created a situation where any philistine in the government or law enforcement organisations can now brand something as illegal just because it may offend their personal beliefs. For example, a political work featuring a naked youngster and a demon approaching her (I can think of several similar compositions from the pages of art history here), could be a masterpiece to many and could tell the story of the dangers faced by innocence in a violent world. But the producer of the work could now be sent to jail for three years!

Ok, Im not sure if I explained it that well, but there is an underlying danger here.. and to me, as an artist myself, I really do fear that ignorance, lack of exposure to culture, a self important and overly powerful government, and an opportunistic media are creating all the right ingredients for a 'cultural cleansing', a terror of opression, or just a plain old fashioned inquisition.

I think we all need to grow up, get a grip and tell these moral crusaders where to stick their censorship.