Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

and here.

This was one opinion on the matter;
I believe something different about these photos. I hope that we can have an intellegent conversation about this.

I abhor the idea of child abuse. It sickens me. But I cannot agree that these photographs are pornographic. Potentially they are, but that really does depend on who looks at them and what they think of them.

Images of naked children do not necessarily equate to pornography. These photos are actually very beautiful. They show androgeny, and convey all sorts of different emotions and form of the human body.

Basically, I feel that images like these only become pornography when somebody looks at them in that way, but they are not meant to be seen that way. How about another example; is it pornographic to take pics of your child in the bath? No, it isn't, although there are sick people out there who would get off on that.

The fault is not on the artist for taking photos of children and making them look beautiful, but on the paedophiles for getting sexually aroused. Can people see the difference?

Of course, I fully admit that these children are potentially not fully consenting, which poses a huge problem, and i don't know how artists can fully get around that.

I just feel that people are so scared to appreciate something quite controversial. I appreciate these pics as art. Does that make me a paedophile?

They should draw the line when it's sexualised - a naked child/adolescent/adult is not inherently sexual in my mind and the naked body can obviously be art.
I can't judge this as I can't see it, but i heard about a while ago.

for me it would depend on whether the pictures were sexualised or not - i.e. whether the children were depicted in a sexual manner.

What did the children and their parents think?

Is not nearly as disturbing imo as 5 year old girls made up for beauty pageants (the ones with full make up, adult clothes etc).

no, it doesn't but you need to realise that perhaps an exhibition of these photos is not in anybody's best interest.

You say you don't know how "artists get round that".... Jeez, is that your biggest concern here?

I don't know exactly what to think, but I think that if it's a murky area, then the police did the right thing. Society should protect children, even if it's at the expense of 'art'.

I find young girls in bikinis odd - rather see them in just pants or one piece - it's like saying they've got something to be covered up.

but there are loads of statues of young naked boys, paintings with cherubs that are naked babies - do you suggest we take them away cuckoo?

I would not choose to go and see the pictures, i'm not sure what person would really dodgey ground. I don't think i would feel comfortable if my child of the same age was photographed naked and then put out for public consumption. Those pictures will now be on the net and possibly missused by peodophiles

'protecting' - do you think I shouldn't have let my dd who's 3 be naked on the beach last week because a pervert might have been looking?

For example i have taken naked pictures of my baby but wouldn't put them on a public forum such as facebook.

I have to say I have changed my opinion now I have seen the second link
I thought it was silly suggesting photographs of a naked child were inappropriate BUT
To photograph young adults, in such an adult way with black backgrounds and lighting - it changes it.
They do not look how I wanted them to look in order to be able to defend the artists rights. iykwim

but 15 yr old girls are pouting in magazines like vogue - can you not see how much weirder that is? This is celebrating their age and their beautiful/ interesting bodies - not dressing them up as adults.

fludub what do you think?

Lucky lady if you had a 13 year old dd would you be happy for he to be photographed ( artisticly) naked and exhibited?

Gosh the photos are great aren't they? I agree flubdub that they are beautiful images. And they capture a certain age and innocence- the end of childhood I guess before the body hits puberty and changes.

I think it's rather sad we live in a society where the photographer's intentions are automatically treated with suspicion.

For children this age you would presumably have parental release forms, but children this age are capable of assent (or refusing to take part).

I don't like these photos, they are completely different to spontaneous(sp) photos of young children playing with pants on/naked.

The pictures are beautifully lit and nicely composed and not sexualised. I just think the subject matter is dogey ground. What stops a peodophile taking similar photos but not for arts sake. Why do the children need to be naked? You can still portray youth without nudity.

I feel like it is unnecessary. The photographs I mean. I didn't find them beautiful.

Those pagents are as weird. And putting your toddler in "I love boys' and 'I know what boys want' tops is weird too - although when I lived in Australia there were no children's clothes of this type.

I'd discuss it with them and see what they thought - hopefully we'd be able to come to a decision together - but i wouldn't rule it out. Honestly!

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, a statue is a statue, made of stone, or bronze, even a stark naked statue is just art.

A photo of a twelve year old is more than just art. It's something else as well.

its wrong

I am happy to see my own children naked, would let them run round the garden or get changed on the beach etc. But i have no desire to see any other child naked. It odesn't offend me but i wouldn't choose to view those pictures.

Not comfy with those images. I'm not saying he's a paedo but I am concerned that they would give those who do find children attractive a sexual thrill and that does not make me happy.