Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

Just as I thought.

No I don't think that - I drew the line in my last paragraph - a child should never be coerced, forced, humiliated, and it should not be sexualised. I don't think that nakedness is automatically sexual or pornographic. There is obviously a line, and anything pornographic would be illegal, wrong, should certainly be punishable. This was assessed and deemed to be 'pg', not illegal, not pornographic, his models defended his methods and his conduct apparently.

I really don't have problem with nakedness.
Like i said i have done life drawing classes. I have taken nude pictures of my own child.

I understand that people appreciate the naked form. For sexual reasons such as nuts. Like i said that is fin it is marketed in that way. They also appreciate it for artistic reasons. Which is alson fine!

But unfortunately smomething that has been intended for artistic purposes can easily be missused.

There are allot of sick people out there more than you'd probably like to admit too. Why feed there sick tendancies?

I will say this again i don't mind chlidren being naked. Just don't like the idea of making it public.

Boco- with the nuts thing it was to make the point that sexualised or non sexualised nudity doesn't bother me.

Breasts are breasts. To me i use them to feed my baby. Some men find them really arrousing. Whatever.

But that i'm not happy with posed child nudes being so accepted in the form of art. Its too murky.

Right off to bed. Typing becoming really crap.

Right off to bed. Typing becoming really crap.

If 'something intended for artistic purposes could easily be misused' then we must ban art altogether! Imagine what the sickos out there could be doing with it all! What?

ban it

ban it

Most renaissance paintings. Loads of them. Quite a lot of documentary photography - thos poor naked children running along the road after the atom bomb? Someone, somewhere, could find that arousing - we should ban it.

Dittany is right, there does have to be boundaries - but we're just not agreeing where those lie.

Dittany half those pictures were of a boy.

They are both paintings not Photographs of real children that can be idetified.

I don't think any of those images cross the boundries.

If you read my posts you would have seen that i said posed photographs, where the child has been asked to remove their clothes for the purpose of the photo.

I've read this thread and some things I've picked up are "pictures of naked children are wrong" "these children can't consent" "nakedness is sexual" "naked children are not art"

img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00009/ed_imgSNF19SPDANN_265_9900a.jpg

www.fotosearch.com/comp/RTF/RTF002/naked-baby-girl_~72131026.jpg

www.poster.net/geddes-anne/geddes-anne-twins-6600014.jpg

Presumably these are disgusting, and pornographic?

Boco, those are not identifiable pictures of individual people.

The ones in the photos are. I have no problem with adults being photographed like that, and would have less of a problem with younger children in similar photos. But I think the pictures in this case are intriguing (and they are beautiful) precisely because they are trespassing in a slightly voyeuristic way on individuals who are on that cusp between childlike innocence and adult sexuality. And because they're on that cusp they are still children and aren't in a position to understand the implications of their 'consent'.

And yes, I accept there might be some artists' kids who are so at ease with their bodies that they're happy to pose like that. But they must be in a tiny minority, and I would be concerned that they had been talked into feeling that they somehow should be at ease with their bodies (I grew up in a family like that fwiw). It's very hard to say 'no' if adults around you are telling you it's fine. That doesn't mean it's okay.

They are babies. They are not exposing sexual organs. Not children between the ages of 12/13. Did you pick that bit up?

I don't think anyone has made any of those sweeping statements. They have said it is wrong in some contexts. Nakedness is sexual in some contexts. And the children can't legally consent.

Yes I did pick that up LMB, but a lot of the statements on here refer to the term "children" and not just 12/13 year olds.

Haven't read the whole thread, but isn't it odd that photos of early adolescence are such a taboo. I don't think I've ever actually seen pictures of naked 12/13 year olds, other than maybe in a biology text book.

We weren't talking about babies or young children. You are the only person to bring up nudes of babies. The pictures we are dicussing are the pictures linked.

It's easier to sexualise a child of 13 than it is a baby. I'm not saying that is what the photog was intending to do.

I am really off to bed now.

Unfortunately I'm really late to this.
I'm an advertising photographer and I actually specialize in kids.
DH is also a photographer (still life)
We've just viewed the photogallery.
Now we have seen millions of beautiful, artistic, interesting, technical photos from all over the world. These are not!
Technically they're poor, student standard really, artistically they're provocative... nasty IMO.
Aus has a really high standard of photographic work, which makes me think that the gallery are just trying to court controversy to mount a show of this standard.
It's actually work like this that makes me nervous to reveal what I do and slightly ashamed.

...Yes I am aware the pictures being discussed are those linked. However you yourself said Why would anyone want to look at naked pictures of other peoples children.

By saying it's OK to look at an Anne Geddes and not OK to look at these pictures is a double standard and hypocritical.

"but isn't it odd that photos of early adolescence are such a taboo"

No its not odd, its quite simple.

Children of that age are children, therefore too young to genuinely consent.

But have entered the realm of sexual development, therefore too old to have consent made for them.

How hard is this to understand???

I'm surprised Ingles, Bill Henson is very famous and well thought of in Australia isn't he?

I think it's alright to feel uncomfortable with images of naked teenagers - I think it's inevitable that we do actually, because it's a huge taboo. That doesn't mean that the artist should be arrested or his work seized though.

Am going to bed now too.

And yes the term "young children" has already been used in this thread.