Displaying pictures of a naked child in an art exhibition - what does everybody think?

[emkana]

The story is here

news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=499383

I can see where the artist is coming from, but I wouldn't want anybody but close family to see pictures of my naked child. I just think it's private, no matter her age. I don't understand why she couldn't approach it differently - e.g. photograph the child in a white garment every time, to make it less controversial.

Anyway, would love to hear people's opinions on this!

Fairymum, I do agree with you, that the american artist with the fuss some years ago had really moving beautiful photos. Not like this rubbish.

Fairymum I remember those photos and they were really beautiful, the type of photos all parents have really, not horribly posed like these ones. These photos were more about the girls nakedness than her as a person. The debate then had some merit.

Still, I hadn't heard of either artist or gallery until now so if publicity was what they were after then good for them.

I can't help wondering what the little girl will make of this when she is older.

And yes, some of the stuff you see parents allowing their little girls to wear is shocking! Tarting them up instead of letting them be kids, and yes I understand about them wanting to look like whoever but what message does it send to let them have whatever they want. That is digressing from this topic though but I warn you now I could rant on that forever so be warned! (I'm glad I have boys!)

I don't see anything wrong with innocent images of children, naked or not, being on public display, for the simple reason that, whilst a pervert could thoeretically take pictures of those images for sexual gratification, the same thing could happen on a beach - as monkeygirl said, there are kids running about naked on the beach, in the park etc when it's warm, and people could just as easily take photos of those kids for sexual gratification (you can't tell where exactly a camera is pointing, and the could claim to be taking pictures of the beach behind you - and of course, that will be exactly what some people are doing). So the possibility of someone taking a photo of a naked child in an art gallery for perverted reasons is no higher than the possibility of someone taking a photo of naked kids on a beach for perverted reasons. You can only protect kids up to a point.

oh but i forgot to mention, not making sure her child fully agreed to the photos being taken AND being displayed, was seriously wrong. Children have a right to privacy and respect, and by not asking her child what she thought, the Mother ignored this fact.

????

what is undignified about a nude child.

how can we justify not exhibiting art based on whether some pervert finds it titillating?

this is insane!

as an adult pictures of myself in the nude as a child do not embarrass me...i am beautiful and innocent because i'm a child.

i really think as a society we have gone mad if we let fear of a paedophile getting turned on by pictures to determine what we allow for public exhibition!

am really by some of the posts on here. how can we expect our children to feel safe in this kind of climate? if we allow a tiny tiny tiny minority of perverts to dictate in this way.

imo children need protecting from this kind of hysteria. seriously.

This is an old thread but I agree sophable: the people who see immorality where there is none are the ones with the problem.

If we allowed terrorists to dictate what we should and shouldn't do to this extent none of us would fly again and London would have been a ghost town in the 70s and 80s. Yes of course paedophiles and perverts exist and sensible precautions should be taken but to be scared of taking naked pictures of your own children is sheer lunacy.

ooooppps! didn't look at the date www! nevermind...still true tho...