Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

Originally posted by tpeele
reply to post by tezzajw

 

Well I, being a 15 year old, think that it is totally wrong to take naked pictures of anyone under 18. It is just...ugh! I can't describe it. You get my point right?

So you're saying that you find all of the women in your school "ugh" if they were naked because they are under 18? When I was in high school I knew plenty of girls who were sexy as hell and under 18 and when I was under 18 you're damn right I would love to see them naked. The age of consent in some states is only 14, so you're already well over the age required to have sex - so whats wrong with seeing someone naked?

Originally posted by deadline527
I guess you are one of the people who would support a clause to genetically modify children to be born with clothes on because of societies stigma against the human body.

Exactly. It's society that is dictating the the naked body is..... WRRROOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGGGG!!!

What could be more natural. We aren't born clothed.

If she was in a sexual position even remotely, I would have a different view on this, but there is nothing sexual about the picture at all.

THIS is my point. What's sexual about a pubescent child? In and of itself NOTHING! It would take more to make it such, that being a pornographic influence. Described above. It's not a factor in this incident.

That being said, my wife disagrees with me, she thinks it's pornographic.

this man is an artist, that's his job and his livelihood. the pictures were in an exhibition of his work, plenty of it involving things that were not nude children. he has had a long career. his credentials as an artist are not in question here.

if an established artist says he created something as art, it becomes art, because thats the only fair measuring stick we have. this is what this thread has mostly been grappling with, what is art, well there's your answer.

art is whatever an artist says it is.

however, i believe there is an issue here that hasn't really been addressed directly, sorry if it has but i haven't noticed. we, as consumers of art, and we all are to some extent, give the artist this right. the artist doesn't have it automatically, and nor should they.

it seems to me, we give the artists in our society the freedom to express themselves in any way they want, and even invite them to challenge us, but in return, we ask one thing, that the artist harms no-one vulnerable in the production of their work.

so if its found that the artist harmed the children, any of them, as far as i'm concerned, his rights are withdrawn, by me and you, but if you can't show harm to the children in the pictures, then they are art, because the artist says they are.

reply to post by tpeele


Yes, I do get your point, and that is why you won't be allowed to vote for another three years. It's called "maturity" and "life-experience", something the law gives you time to collect before allowing you to meddle with it.

reply to post by jamie83


No, that is not what many peple are saying. That is what YOU want them to be saying, but that's because you can only think in didactic forms.

to wit...

Originally posted by jamie83
reply to post by stratsys-sws

 

Robbie,

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

Nice strong opening. Certainly judgemental and only slightly self-righteous, but for the real irony, why don't you open mouth and insert both feet?

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

Not at all condescending or in any way correct.

The issue has everything to do with protecting the welfare of minor children so that they will not be exploited for financial gain

See, that bit is actually true. That is the reason the images were pulled. But, that is only the beginning of the issue, not the end of the issue. And this

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.

is so perfectly self-righteous that it takes the sweet, baked flour product. Talk about editorialising. You continually trot this emotionally-charged, intellectually-feeble crap out in your determination to paint Henson and anyone who defends him as a pseudo-paedophile or tacit supporter of such while depicting the Nazis supressing artistic expression as living saints.

"It's people like you" who actively make public discourse on sensitive subjects impossible. It's people like you who deliberately miscast the facts of issues to achieve an emotional end. It's people like you who make the world a duller, greyer and poorer place to live.

As for societies in deep trouble, the Taliban had things to say about art, too.

me @aol .com would like to se this content to see if it merits a column in the local gossip mag tks cheryl

reply to post by intrepid


Of all form authority such as religious and political authority, society (the people authority) has the most right to determine what is right and wrong. Not just one artist, one intrepid or one Jazzyguy.

The opinion of one society has more weight than an opinion of one group of individuals. If you want to change the opinion of a society, you should do so, instead of just condemning and dismissing society's opinion as a whole.

Let the system, the society, the authority, the police, the court sort it out.

[edit on Fri, 30 May 08 by Jazzyguy]

reply to post by tezzajw


I believe this is some what wrong, i mean if its illegal for a person to have naked pictures or children on there computer or what ever then why should it be legal for a artist to have photo's of naked girl's displayed in his gallery even a celebrity i believe Kate Blanchet was defending him nothing against her though she's gorgess but still. and then there is the parent's why would they allow it ? weather the parents allowed it or not they failed to protect there daughter's they literally sold her for money i believe.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Cheers HowlrunnerIV nice to know someone else wasn't too impressed by the hipocracy and down right rudeness of that statement!
I think I hit a raw nerve though, so I'll say no more about the conduct of that poster and his general disregard for everyone else on this forum.

It seems one of the key objections by our little screamer in here is not the actual art itself, it seems they are offended because it is apparently being done for profit?
Ok...well let me pose this question.....if they were donated to a free to enter art gallery, annonymously, where no person could said to be exploited would that still be wrong?

Cheers

Robbie

I think the artist is definetly a victim of overly instrusive police work. You have to look at the specifics of the matter.

First of all, did the parents give consent to this.
Second, are the children emotionally distraught after modeling?

If not, then charges are unfounded. Period.

well theres a great deal of things to consider, we are in the sexual/porn age.... the same kinda way of thinking that was used back when we thought the world was flat, all round world thinker were insane.

More money today is made from doing things most would of considered to be acts of a mentaly ill person back in the day. But here we are, Prostitution isnt legal in most places in america, but Making adult films is everywhere...... Interesting.

Well we know the world isnt flat, but do we really know what is art, an what is erotica? Almost looks the same an in many samples can impose the same effects if looked at in a certain frame of mind..

Art wont look like art if the person looking isnt very artistic..... Plain an simple.

This is why there r Jocks and Drama student and Not Jocama Students.
Its about views people, an the funny thing is, EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT ONE.
and how is that gonna settle with this black an white way of understanding this world has come to love.

If you ask me, its time to see the Cucumber as a Pickle and a fertilizer too.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Trance Optic
then again on 11-4-2008 but not before the great toaster uprising of 2006 on planet stovetopand then finally:

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Trance Optic]

The following lines are from an artice in today's paper (Sunday Herald Sun, page 4). Sorry, I have no source link, as my internet is running too slow for Google to work.

Photographs of naked children are for sale through a Melbourne art gallery in a building owned and shared by the Liberal Party.

The gallery, in Exhibition St, has been displaying several works similar to those seized by Sydney police.

The unframed photos cost up to $18,000. One showed a full frontal image of a nude girl. Others were of girls in various stages of undress, some with exposed breasts.

Also, for the Aussie readers (who know who he is), Eddie McGuire has weighed in on page 83 with these (selected by me) comments:

His genius lies in the lighting, the shade and the mood of his pictures. Why a 13-year-old? I don't for a second believe the pictures to be pornographic or erotic. Just don't use minors.

There can never be a justification for the use of young people, whether exploitative or not, in any way. Make it simple. Make it against the law. Artists will use their materials and talent to express themselves, not innocent children.

There's also a witty cartoon drawn by Mark Knight on page 82. Take a look at it, if you can.

Text NavyHow do I look at the picture, so that I can provide my opinion on the picture.

reply to post by tezzajw


Ah, good old Eddie McGuire, the man with only 25 letters in his alphabet...

Eddie, stick to the football. You screwed up the GP coverage, you embarrassed the whole country everytime you asked us "Who wants to be a miyonaire?" and you even manage to misquote the rules of Aussie Rules live on air.

Eddie, commenting on Magpie games while being the president of the club perfectly fits the description of "conflict of interest".

Commenting on art while having no brain also fits that description.

reply to post by Nammu


hey nammu, you wanna see the pics?
google-ize the words " bill henson australia" and the very first pic should give you a hint about his photo serie.
Personally, I don't care about seeing teenage girls like that, but I understand the scandal...Art is Art, no matter what our good westerners vices are...

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
And we should at ALL costs fight to keep them innocent and protect them from those who prey on their innocence.

Does this apply only to nudity or to other things as well?

Does your "at all costs" prevent your children from seeing violence?

Some of the stuff I see on The Cartoon Network is pretty violent. I have always asked which is worse... violence or nudity? I am amazed at how many parents are appalled at the thoughts of their kids being exposed to nudity, but have no problem letting them watch TV shows and cartoons where people are killed or wounded through violence.

Not saying you do or don't do this... just using your quote to make a point.

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
And we should at ALL costs fight to keep them innocent and protect them from those who prey on their innocence.

Does this apply only to nudity or to other things as well?

Does your "at all costs" prevent your children from seeing violence?

Some of the stuff I see on The Cartoon Network is pretty violent.

And not in the "cartoon" way. Let's face it, Itchy and Scratchy were funny because they were WAY more violent than an old Loony Tune...but then you see the original Tom and Jerry and suddenly Itchy and Scratchy aren't that out there, after all.

It ain't just the violence. Some of the social attitudes would bring protests and boycotts if produced today.

Cartoon Network Asia still shows the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, and I mean OLD, from back when Tom's house had a black housekeeper. We never see her face, but she's overweight, "waddles" around the house, wears slippers, socks and an apron and is fond of words such as "Lordy"...Jump forward to the fifties and sixties and Tom has moved into an apartment in the inner city, where black people simply don't exist...

So, where do you draw the line when it comes to protecting kids' innocence?

reply to post by jamie83


If you're referring to this picture *beware, possibly offensive image*, then Fred Nile has a candle with your name on it.

All I could do was search the girl's face, looking for, I don't know...Trying to find out what was in her eyes and what she was thinking. That is one seriously compelling image.

In a gallery, blown up to larger-than-normal size, I'm sure that girl's face stops crowds.

What is she thinking?

This is a sad story. Any time I hear about stories like these it makes me want to take my own life.

Oh wow I know I pressed the save as draft button! Here I was coming to post it for the first time and its already up a page back. Does it always post it when you do that? I thought it saved it to a folder for you to edit later but my draft folder is empty? I was going to edit down my post to make it a little shorter or I thought no one would end up reading my almost-essay lol. A few did I guess..

What does it mean to get applause?

.. And how do you give them? I'm still sort of a newb of ATS..

Originally posted by Matt_Mulder
reply to post by Nammu

 

Art is Art, no matter what our good westerners vices are...

hmmm...so Matt, if someone takes a gun and shoots you in the head, and an artistic photographer captures it on film and it displays your brains being blown out, and they display it as art under the genre of 'gruesome death' pictures or something similar...then we should applaud that as art, huh?

now pay attention here, I am not talking about the person that shot you, I am talking about the artist photographer here....so thats alright to show anywhere as art? Is that the way you 'euro's' do it???

[edit on 3-6-2008 by TrailGator]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by TrailGator]